• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

"Second Amendment Taken Far Out of Context"

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
There is no winning with these "anti's"...

When you quote the drafters of the Constitution in their writings, they say that "times have changed", and those ideas no longer apply, even when you are quoting philosophies of fundamental human rights.

When you talk about a strong, universally-applied 2A, they cry "foul", but they will be the FIRST ones to shout if their 1A or 4A are infringed upon.

When you quote hitorically-proven statistics, you get accused of "cutting and pasting".

When you offer opinion, you get dissed for not backing it up with facts.

Willful ignorance is rarely curable by the tonic of truth...
 
Last edited:

papa bear

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2010
Messages
2,222
Location
mayberry, nc
good posting in the paper on the letter, Ruger, aka 9mmpatriot

unfortunately, i could not put my .02 in the paper. i would have liked to point out that Mr. Dudley was accusing 2a supporters of having a narrow interpretation of the 2a," (Mr. Dudley) Recall that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is qualified by the initial phrase, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. ...” " . seems like he left out the main jest of the line , or had a narrow view of the 2a. (comma) , the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

i like to point it out this way
1. in order to keep a free state
2. you need a capable militia, " definition ; The whole body of physically fit civilians
3. the citizens must be able to keep and bear arms

example ; because of the anti-arms movements of the late 1800's. the army found citizen's arms proficiency dismal. that's why we started the " citizens marksmanship act" .
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
i would have liked to point out that Mr. Dudley was accusing 2a supporters of having a narrow interpretation of the 2a," (Mr. Dudley) Recall that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is qualified by the initial phrase, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. ...” " . seems like he left out the main jest of the line , or had a narrow view of the 2a. (comma) , the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed


What these pseudo-intellectual wingnuts like Mr. Dudley seem to forget when they talk about the "militia" reference being a "qualifying phrase" is that as such, it is NOT the primary phrase in the 2A. It is a descriptor, a conditional, an explaining reason WHY the second (and MAIN) phrase MUST BE. It is not the ONLY reason why the People shall keep and bear arms, but it is, in a Free State, the most important...


The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed...

BECAUSE the security of a free state REQUIRES that a militia is necessary. And a Militia IS the People. The militia IS NOT the Fed. It is NOT the State. It is not even a municipal government. It is the PEOPLE.

And the PEOPLE must be ever-vigilant, ever-prepared, and ever-ready to SECURE their freedom, against ALL THREATS, foreign AND domestic.

THAT is what the 2A is about, Mr. Dudley. Since anti-2A sheeple like you won't prepare and equip yourself to secure your own freedom and the freedom of your communities, those of us who CAN and WILL are going to be the ones you hide behind when the JBTs come for you, and your children, and your property. Because it's not a matter of "if", but of "when"...

There is only one thing I hate more than the willfully ignorant, and that is people who pretend to be smart by throwing around big words of which they do not know the meaning...
 
Last edited:

sultan62

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,311
Location
Clayton, NC
What these pseudo-intellectual wingnuts like Mr. Dudley seem to forget when they talk about the "militia" reference being a "qualifying phrase" is that as such, it is NOT the primary phrase in the 2A. It is a descriptor, a conditional, an explaining reason WHY the second (and MAIN) phrase MUST BE. It is not the ONLY reason why the People shall keep and bear arms, but it is, in a Free State, the most important...


The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed...

BECAUSE the security of a free state REQUIRES that a militia is necessary. And a Militia IS the People. The militia IS NOT the Fed. It is NOT the State. It is not even a municipal government. It is the PEOPLE.

And the PEOPLE must be ever-vigilant, ever-prepared, and ever-ready to SECURE their freedom, against ALL THREATS, foreign AND domestic.

THAT is what the 2A is about, Mr. Dudley. Since anti-2A sheeple like you won't prepare and equip yourself to secure your own freedom and the freedom of your communities, those of us who CAN and WILL are going to be the ones you hide behind when the JBTs come for you, and your children, and your property. Because it's not a matter of "if", but of "when"...

There is only one thing I hate more than the willfully ignorant, and that is people who pretend to be smart by throwing around big words of which they do not know the meaning...

What he said.
 
Top