Who Would Vote For bush Again?

oralloy wrote:

That is heading into a bit of a gray area. The core part of the Second Amendment would only apply to people who join a militia.

What do you consider the core part of the Second Amendment?

oralloy wrote:

The self-defense right would not apply to automatic rifles, but it would cover things like armor-piercing ammo to defend against criminals wearing body armor.

Grey area indeed. Why would it only cover armor-piercing ammo? If everybody had the right to own arms suitable for armor-piercing ammo,

how would you know that criminals would not come up with something better than merely body armor?

As far as the 2nd Amendent, it seems some people can not read to well as there is a COMA bewteen the milia and the people meaning they are DIFFERENT!

They could if they wanted to revive protests like in the sixties or have riots.

1. The ONLY right which assures ALL other rights is the right of the people to be armed

2. In the last century, various Governments have killed OVER 100,000,000 of their OWN people.

3. If the government's side arms greatly out match those of the citizens, the citizens have no chance.

4. Before WWII Germany was a democracy. One of the first things Hitler did once he consolidated his power was outlaw the private ownership of guns.

5. Since Britain had pretty much done the same, when WWII started, Britions were asking Americans to send them guns.

5. Anyone who does not think it may never be necessary for American citizens to take up arms against our government are both ignorant of history and are less than logical.

People who advocate wholesale murder of opposition Americans are no better than the Chinese officials who did it.

It amuses me how, on the one hand, the conservatives in this thread are all for keeping the populace well-armed to defend against an all-mighty gov't, but on the other hand, roll over and wait for their tummies to be rubbed by the gov't on the issue of illegal wiretapping.

As if your puny little guns would ever do much against a strong gov't. Wake up, people!

I agree with the intention they had in mind.

However, that sounds as if you would read the Second Amendment as an Amendment establishing a militia rather than and Amendment granting the right to bear arms...

huh... doesn't the national guard meet that need ?

oralloy wrote:

The militia was already established in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

Article I Section 8 establishes the right of Congress to call forth a militia, right? It doesn't really establish a militia.

oralloy wrote:

What the Second Amendment does is require that the government have a militia on hand to defend the country, and require that people in the militia be adequately armed (meaning arms comparable with what a militia of the day would be expected to be armed with).

So the federal government is actually not complying with the Constitution?

And there is just one single state that actually has a militia, as far as I know...

Furthermore, you're saying that the right to bear arms is connected to being organized in a well regulated militia. So how would I have the right to own and bear arms outside such a militia?

That's OK SNOOD, if I told you what you remind me of, they would kick me out of here is a split second.

So go play in your sandbox with the rest of the kiddies.

Isn't it odd how blacks like to call for stricter gun controls yet they are the perpetrators of most urban gun related crimes?

Disarm whitey so we can run amuck.

cjhsa wrote:

Isn't it odd how blacks like to call for stricter gun controls yet they are the perpetrators of most urban gun related crimes?

Disarm whitey so we can run amuck.

What blacks on A2K have been calling for stricter gun control? Or, are you speaking of the opinions just of your close personal circle of friends?