The Guardian Plan - Page 50
Closed Thread
Page 50 of 53 FirstFirst ... 404647484950515253 LastLast
Results 491 to 500 of 528
Like Tree233Likes

Thread: The Guardian Plan

  1. #491
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    I agree to:
    1. A well regulated militia (which would do nothing against the gov'ts forces today but anyways). Disciplined and trained people.
    2. To keep and bear arms. It doesn't say it has to be every arm available.

    Heck, everyone can have their musket! I'm on board with that!

  2. #492
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica80 View Post
    I agree to:
    1. A well regulated militia (which would do nothing against the gov'ts forces today but anyways). Disciplined and trained people.
    2. To keep and bear arms. It doesn't say it has to be every arm available.

    Heck, everyone can have their musket! I'm on board with that!
    the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
    I would call telling people what kind of gun they can buy infringement.
    Rivergallery likes this.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  3. #493
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Do you feel infringed upon by not being able to buy a fighter jet or a SCUD missile or a nuke? Because you can't. Why doesn't that bother you? You are limited in what arms you can bear, by a government which out weapons you like 200,000,000:1. Yet you don't protest that.

    Is it really just about out arming the scary people a few neighborhoods away?
    Jessica80 likes this.

  4. #494
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    No, I don't consider that an infringement on my rights or yours at all.

  5. #495
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    Do you feel infringed upon by not being able to buy a fighter jet or a SCUD missile or a nuke? Because you can't. Why doesn't that bother you? You are limited in what arms you can bear, by a government which out weapons you like 200,000,000:1. Yet you don't protest that.

    Is it really just about out arming the scary people a few neighborhoods away?
    It is limiting it according to the signers of the 2nd amendment is my point.
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

  6. #496
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    As I pointed out, I don't think what we have is anywhere close to what they were picturing. At all.

    I don't see anywhere that says that you can have access to any weapons that we have today. If we're going by what they thought at that time they were picturing arms available to them. By all means, please have all the access you want to those.

  7. #497
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    Do you feel infringed upon by not being able to buy a fighter jet or a SCUD missile or a nuke? Because you can't. Why doesn't that bother you? You are limited in what arms you can bear, by a government which out weapons you like 200,000,000:1. Yet you don't protest that.

    Is it really just about out arming the scary people a few neighborhoods away?
    My right to buy a fighter jet is not in the Constitution. A fighter jet is not classified as ARMS and never has been. Especially when they didn't even have airplanes when the Constitution was written.

    (4) The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.
    Legal Theory of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  8. #498
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica80 View Post
    As I pointed out, I don't think what we have is anywhere close to what they were picturing. At all.

    I don't see anywhere that says that you can have access to any weapons that we have today. If we're going by what they thought at that time they were picturing arms available to them. By all means, please have all the access you want to those.
    I believe their intent was that the people should have weapons equal to the government so they could oppose the government and other world governments if needed. I am not saying that is wise at this time, but I do believe that was their intent.
    Rivergallery likes this.

    ~Bonita~

  9. #499
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    Yep and what we have today didn't exist then either.

    The 2nd amend. allows you to have guns. It does NOT say what kind.

  10. #500
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessica80 View Post

    The 2nd amend. allows you to have guns. It does NOT say what kind.
    You might have already said, but for clarification, what kinds of guns do you think people should be able to have?

    ~Bonita~

Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions