Missouri stand up and fight house bill 545
Forums › General Discussion › Missouri stand up and fight house bill 545-
Addi
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Plain and simple .It says well regulated militia NOT well regulated arms(guns). The right of the people to keep and bear arms. NOT the right of the people to keep and bear some arms(guns). The AR-15 and other so called "assault rifles" are modern day musket.Again the 2nd amendment was NOT made for the purpose of protecting hunters/sports. Back then if you didn't hunt,you didn't eat. It's my god given right to protect my self,family and property from harm. I don't need more government in my life.
-
Ghetto Monstazz wrote:
The problem is a black market exists and anyone wanting one can circumvent the system. Just like how drugs are "banned". Drug dealers still get them.fuck it. would you gum owners atleast admit that there should be a psych test before owning a gun?
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)mr gagnsta wrote:
✂regulated ✂If you want to point at the amendment then you have to look at what it historically stood for. And what the NRA preaches isn't it. ;) The erosion of our constitution is not happening because we are taking the regulated part seriously. Says it right there. It's happening because our country has rewritten its meaning.💀༄्ཧ़ཀंེབ།༨ཛყ༄💀 wrote:
✂
✂✂.
This isn't the NRA. It's the primary author of the constitution.
-
Bomb, everybody run. Leave ur AR's where they are. Get the **** out!!!
-
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
This guy signed the constitution. I don't think he was a member a of the NRA either.
-
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
This guy was a Virginia delegate to the constitutional convention. He did not sign the constitution because it did not contain a statement of rights. He, Patrick Henry, and Madison were the primary individuals who drafted the Bill of Rights.
I don't think he was in the NRA either.
-
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
This guy didnt sign the constitution, but he was an important figure in advocating for the drafting of a constitution. He was a cousin of John Adams our second president.
-
YOU wrote:
Oh ya, he wasn't a member of the NRA either."The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
This guy didnt sign the constitution, but he was an important figure in advocating for the drafting of a constitution. He was a cousin of John Adams our second president.
-
From the 2008 DC v. Heller SCOTUS decision:
The Court held:
✂
'(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.'The lines between lawful and unlawful weapons have been drawn and re-drawn since this country's founding. All we are talking about now is moving the lines again. The 2nd amendment is not absolute. It's open to interpretation by the courts based on the times we live in and the technology at our disposal.
-
How many of these disturbed individuals who shoot up schools and cinemas obtain their guns through legally held domestic caches?
Really, I'm curious as to wether these nutters went out to form links with criminals who went on to supply illegal black market firearms. Or did they get their murderous hands on legally owned weapons?
It's only about restricting access to potentially dangerous tools, surely? -
The bill of rights does not grant or bistow rights to americans. It recognizes unalienable rights that ever man (person) was born with. The bill of rights only spells them out. Attacking a piece of paper doesnt some how change these rights we were all born with. The right to speak your mind, the right to defend yourself, regardless of where the threat comes.
-
"The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
This is also from the Heller decision. No one has challanged this to see how semi auto rifles would hold up under this desicion, but I suspect they are also "arms" that Americans choose to use for the lawful purpose of self defense.
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Wrong on both counts. The bill of rights limits the ability of the government to infringe on the rights of the people. The entire purpose of our founding documents and every decent law since is to strike a balance between individual freedom and the greater good of society. If individual freedom trumps the interests of the people at large, then what's the point of this exercise? Might as well just all go our own separate ways. You give up certain rights in exchange for enjoying the security and prosperity of living in this country, that's the bargain we all make.The bill of rights does not grant or bistow rights to americans. It recognizes unalienable rights that ever man (person) was born with. The bill of rights only spells them out. Attacking a piece of paper doesnt some how change these rights we were all born with. The right to speak your mind, the right to defend yourself, regardless of where the threat comes.
-
I don't think the Heller decision could be applied to semi-auto rifles in the same way. I don't hear a whole lot of people choosing AR-15s primarily for home defense. Also seems a little irresponsible to be unloading something that destructive on a burglar in your living room while your wife and kids are sleeping upstairs.
-
http://www.google.com/search?q=dewalt+ar+15+nail+gun+for+sale&hl=en&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=qhEhUa3eKofWqAGt3YHgCQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=320&bih=416#i=15
-
★fnord★ wrote:
And I see it the other way. Fortunately neither you or I will decide. The court will.I don't think the Heller decision could be applied to semi-auto rifles in the same way. I don't hear a whole lot of people choosing AR-15s primarily for home defense. Also seems a little irresponsible to be unloading something that destructive on a burglar in your living room while your wife and kids are sleeping upstairs.
-
🔥SirTalkALot🔥 wrote:
Quit blaming the rifle. Hold the unstable idiot behind the rifle accountable.I can see our forefathers looking down at us in disappointment at the people who refuse to do anything about innocent children being murdered, and traumatized by assault riles.
No one is accountable anymore. It's always someone/something else's fault.
What about that guy's teachers, counselors, friends, family, and parents? Why not pass the blame to them for what he did for not getting him the help he obviously needed. The gun has become the "scapegoat" to this entire ordeal because no one wants to take blame for what has happened. No one wants to be at fault for failing him.
-
🔥SirTalkALot🔥 wrote:
Children are being traumatized by inanimate objects. They are being traumatized by criminals who use the object for illegal purposes. Hold the criminal responsible not the object.I can see our forefathers looking down at us in disappointment at the people who refuse to do anything about innocent children being murdered, and traumatized by assault riles.
-
The sad thing is the effects of this social political experiment are costing law abiding citizens thier lives. You won't hear about this on CNN, mnbc.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/13/3231686/man-killed-in-miami-home-invasion.html?asset_id=Man%20killed%20in%20Miami%20home%20invasion%20while%20protecting%20little%20girl&asset_type=html_module
No "universal background check" would have saved this mans life or have prevented the horrific experience this family will now live with. No background check would have saved the lives of people lost at the hands of that California ex-cop. This is the world the left want to force everyone to live in. A world where you are the victim and the bad guys have the upper hand. Get use to it because we have underestimated the power of stupid people in large groups for so long it may be too late for the rest of us.
-
What other solution do we have? The banning the assult rifle is the only logical step we can take.
You keep on saying banning the assault rifle is bad, yet you show no other alternative. You can't ignore the problem with crazy people and assault rifles.
Something has to be done. You can ignore this topic forever for its only going to get worse as time goes on. -
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ 2 min ago Quote
No "universal background check" would have saved this mans life or have prevented the horrific experience this family will now live with. No background check would have saved the lives of people lost at the hands of that California ex-cop. This is the world the left want to force everyone to live in. A world where you are the victim and the bad guys have the upper hand. Get use to it because we have underestimated the power of stupid people in large groups for so long it may be too late for the rest of us.......
So your saying that making it easier for ANYONE to get a gun will solve the issue? -
🔥SirTalkALot🔥 wrote:
I am in favor of better care for the mentally ill. Background checks. Long jail sentences for those you violate current gun laws. More prosecutions of those who violate current gun laws.What other solution do we have? The banning the assult rifle is the only logical step we can take.
You keep on saying banning the assault rifle is bad, yet you show no other alternative. You can't ignore the problem with crazy people and assault rifles.
Something has to be done. You can ignore this topic forever for its only going to get worse as time goes on. -
Every criminal was once a law abiding citizen, just as every illegal gun was once purchased legally. Where do criminals get guns from? Obviously they get them from legal gun owners. By the time gun-wielding criminals are held responsible, it's too late for the victims. Restricting access to certain arms is about sensible crime prevention. Many types of arms are already heavily restricted in the spirit of crime prevention. I don't hear anyone arguing that all these arms should be legal, nor do I hear anyone arguing that all arms should be illegal. We all seem to agree that a line should be drawn somewhere, we simply disagree on where that line should be.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
What makes you think you are right? Just because you say so I guess. Lol " the greater good of society "??? Lmao. Quoting dictators doesn't make your point right or really helps your argument. Greater good......bwhaha. I don't need the government to be my parents or my nanny.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Wrong on both counts. The bill of rights limits the ability of the government to infringe on the rights of the people. The entire purpose of our founding documents and every decent law since is to strike a balance between individual freedom and the greater good of society. If individual freedom trumps the interests of the people at large, then what's the point of this exercise? Might as well just all go our own separate ways. You give up certain rights in exchange for enjoying the security and prosperity of living in this country, that's the bargain we all make. -
★fnord★ wrote:
Lmfao......... You're joking!!!!Every criminal was once a law abiding citizen, just as every illegal gun was once purchased legally. Where do criminals get guns from? Obviously they get them from legal gun owners. By the time gun-wielding criminals are held responsible, it's too late for the victims. Restricting access to certain arms is about sensible crime prevention. Many types of arms are already heavily restricted in the spirit of crime prevention. I don't hear anyone arguing that all these arms should be legal, nor do I hear anyone arguing that all arms should be illegal. We all seem to agree that a line should be drawn somewhere, we simply disagree on where that line should be.
-
Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
There are a thousand ways that your individual liberty is restricted for the greater good. Look around you. Don't get me wrong, I'm against government over reach as much as the next guy but it doesn't change reality.★fnord★ wrote:
What makes you think you are right? Just because you say so I guess. Lol " the greater good of societal"??? Lmao. Quoting dictators doesn't make your point right or really helps your argument. Greater good......bwhaha. I don't need the government to be my parents or my nanny.Ùℵɖḝཞ Ʈʘώ wrote:
Wrong on both counts. The bill of rights limits the ability of the government to infringe on the rights of the people. The entire purpose of our founding documents and every decent law since is to strike a balance between individual freedom and the greater good of society. -
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
When I was a kid the movie Labyrinth scared me. Traumatized me for a long time. So it's David Bowies fault. And Jim Hensens too for making those sketchy puppets. And Jennifer Connelly too. Even though she's hot it's still her fault. Her sexiness lured me into a false sense of security.🔥SirTalkALot🔥 wrote:
Children are being traumatized by inanimate objects. They are being traumatized by criminals who use the object for illegal purposes. Hold the criminal responsible not the object.I can see our forefathers looking down at us in disappointment at the people who refuse to do anything about innocent children being murdered, and traumatized by assault riles.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Actually Undertow is correct. One of the major reasons the 9th Amendment was added was to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as an absolute and final list of the rights of man. The Bill of Rights does not "grant" rights, it enumerates them. That's a major distinction. We may not have a right to privacy explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights, but it's implied in parts of the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments. And in the Griswold decision, Justice Douglas reaffirmed that the Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list. I'm not sure how you can interpret the Bill of Rights in a way that our forefathers were sitting around a table, discussing which "rights" to hand out. It's the other way around, they were attempting to list the unalienable rights of man bestowed by God.Wrong on both counts. The bill of rights limits the ability of the government to infringe on the rights of the people. ✂
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
👆🔥SirTalkALot🔥 wrote:
I am in favor of better care for the mentally ill. Background checks. Long jail sentences for those you violate current gun laws. More prosecutions of those who violate current gun laws.What other solution do we have? The banning the assult rifle is the only logical step we can take.
✂
"the only logical step is to ban assault weapons"? Ragnar's seem pretty logical. I'm probably in the minority about this one, but how about allowing teachers to carry concealed in the classroom, if they choose to. How about some federal monies to train and certify teachers in the use of concealed handguns. I know it's controversial but I'd rather that then Americans choosing to strip down the 2nd Amendment further. -
🌾ᏦᎻᎪᏞ🌾 wrote:
So kids are at school and the teacher reaches inside there pocket for a pen and everyone ducks...ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
👆🔥SirTalkALot🔥 wrote:
I.What other solution do we have? The banning the assult rifle is the only logical step we can take.
✂
"the only logical step is to ban assault weapons"? Ragnar's seem pretty logical. I'm probably in the minority about this one, but how about allowing teachers to carry concealed in the classroom, if they choose to. How about some federal monies to train and certify teachers in the use of concealed handguns. I know it's controversial but I'd rather that then Americans choosing to strip down the 2nd Amendment further.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC