2nd amendment does not protect hunters - so says federal judge

sudden valley gunner · Jun 26, 2014

beebobby said:
Do you beleive that a well regulated Militia is still necessary to the security of a free State in light of the fact that the US has the most powerful standing military in the history of the world (something the framers did not foresee)?

Yes. Armed citizens knowing how to use their guns is necessary for a free state.

The army of the government is a nonsequitor to your question and something totally seperate, especially considering the 2A wasn't about protecting against the government said military works for.

Also, because of the comment and as I pointed out the RKBA as written doesn't have to include the militia.

sudden valley gunner · Jun 26, 2014

beebobby said:
Constitutionally, the President has the power to call up the militia. In your opinion (because, really, that's all it is) is it constitutional for a citizen militia to call itself up to wage war against the democratically elected govt. of the people because they don't like the CIC.

Constitutionally the militia (the people) are under no obligation to head that call.

F350 · Jun 26, 2014

beebobby said:
Do you beleive that a well regulated Militia is still necessary to the security of a free State in light of the fact that the US has the most powerful standing military in the history of the world (something the framers did not foresee)?

Gots one word for ya BUNDY

sudden valley gunner · Jun 26, 2014

F350 said:
Gots one word for ya BUNDY

He has limited thought process if the folks who just left the largest Empire with a huge army, couldn't foresee a standing army, they specifically shied away from it and wrote the 2A in support of that thought.

OC for ME · Jun 27, 2014

beebobby said:
Was that your answer to the question about the constitutionality of taking up arms against the elected govt. or just typical GOTP deflection?

There is no need to deflect a false premise based position. Usually, where liberals are concerned, and you prove the point, simply make the claim, because the false premise is evident to all rational observers, then ignore the remaining "liberal rhetorical regurgitations" and move on. Repitition is not a liberals friend when the/your premise is false.

When you get around to basing your position(s) on a valid premise then I'll engage in a conversation, until then...

davidmcbeth · Jul 1, 2014

beebobby said:
Do you beleive that a well regulated Militia is still necessary to the security of a free State in light of the fact that the US has the most powerful standing military in the history of the world (something the framers did not foresee)?

China had an excellent and powerful army when Mao and his band of poorly armed peasants defeated the army.

Don't think for a second that the people of this country cannot defeat our own armed forces.

Firearms Iinstuctor · Jul 1, 2014

I think we have been pushed by the anti's into defining the 2nd into something more or less then what it is.

If they can use it or define it for one purpose over another they can restrict the other purpose.

If you only say it is restricted to military type arms then sporting arms are not protected. If restricted to sporting arms the military arms are not.

I think one has to take the 2nd on face value. It protects the right of the states to have a Militia, 2nd it protects the rights of the individual to bear arms for what ever reason he or she demeans proper.

Falling into the trap of it protects bearing of arms for this or that leaves open the banning of arms for one or the other.

If I commit a crime while bearing arms or not I should be punished for that crime not for bearing a arm while doing so.

A murder is a murder doesn't really matter how I killed you, your still dead.

By allowing murder or other crime to be defined by the type of weapon is just a ploy by the anti's to weaken or destroy the use and bearing of arms.

sudden valley gunner · Jul 1, 2014

Firearms Iinstuctor said:
I think we have been pushed by the anti's into defining the 2nd into something more or less then what it is.

If they can use it or define it for one purpose over another they can restrict the other purpose.

If you only say it is restricted to military type arms then sporting arms are not protected. If restricted to sporting arms the military arms are not.

I think one has to take the 2nd on face value. It protects the right of the states to have a Militia, 2nd it protects the rights of the individual to bear arms for what ever reason he or she demeans proper.

Falling into the trap of it protects bearing of arms for this or that leaves open the banning of arms for one or the other.

If I commit a crime while bearing arms or not I should be punished for that crime not for bearing a arm while doing so.

A murder is a murder doesn't really matter how I killed you, your still dead.

By allowing murder or other crime to be defined by the type of weapon is just a ploy by the anti's to weaken or destroy the use and bearing of arms.

Yep When they can't interpret the constitution to fit their agenda they change the meaning. It has been done with commerce clause, general welfare, regulate, militia, etc.

Look at the Miller decision, the judges already declared the 2A to mean military style weapons, yet many now are trying another tactic.

georg jetson · Jul 1, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
Yep When they can't interpret the constitution to fit their agenda they change the meaning. It has been done with commerce clause, general welfare, regulate, militia, etc.

Look at the Miller decision, the judges already declared the 2A to mean military style weapons, yet many now are trying another tactic.

...and of course the definition of the 2a is simple. It is a strict and unequivocal prohibition of power from the fed gov to regulate the right to keep and bear. Any other argument concerning the meaning of words or phrases is irrelevant.

WalkingWolf · Jul 1, 2014

georg jetson said:
...and of course the definition of the 2a is simple. It is a strict and unequivocal prohibition of power from the fed gov to regulate the right to keep and bear. Any other argument concerning the meaning of words or phrases is irrelevant.

+1 of course though over the years it has been raped by statists and progressives, and even gun owners who think it is there for just there little niche.

sudden valley gunner · Jul 1, 2014

georg jetson said:
...and of course the definition of the 2a is simple. It is a strict and unequivocal prohibition of power from the fed gov to regulate the right to keep and bear. Any other argument concerning the meaning of words or phrases is irrelevant.

+1 You read it to a young kid and they know exactly what it means.

WalkingWolf said:
+1 of course though over the years it has been raped by statists and progressives, and even gun owners who think it is there for just there little niche.

+1

davidmcbeth · Jul 2, 2014

georg jetson said:
...and of course the definition of the 2a is simple. It is a strict and unequivocal prohibition of power from the fed gov to regulate the right to keep and bear. Any other argument concerning the meaning of words or phrases is irrelevant.

Quit reading that document ! (Stalin & like minded people)

2nd amendment does not protect hunters - so says federal judge

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

F350

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

georg jetson

Regular Member

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned