Posted on 03/14/2018 1:56:27 PM PDT by rktman
As a first step, I would like to challenge Sen. Rubio to publically explain why any American civilian actually needs to own a military assault weapon.
The 2nd Amendment of our Constitution consists of 26 words written in arcane language that has caused much confusion down through the years. Since the amendment was written at a time in our history where virtually every home contained a flintlock musket and gun ownership was an accepted, normal part of everyday life, it’s reasonable to believe that, rather than dealing with individual gun ownership, the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the right of each state to have its own “well regulated militia.”
However, the NRA has taken the last 14 words of the amendment, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” strictly out of context, to promote a pro-gun agenda that has been amazingly successful. The NRA is recognized as the most powerful and influential government lobbying group in the U.S. They have bought and/or intimidated many politicians — including our own Sen. Marco Rubio, who has taken millions from the NRA — into adopting and promoting their agenda, which includes the following:
(Excerpt) Read more at ocala.com ...
Try to take our guns and test how absolute it is.
We need them to protect ourselves against people like YOU, Ross, you communist piece of dog-crap.
Spelling and diction are clearly not your strong suits, Ross, you ignorant totalitarian troglodyte! The words you're looking for, here, are "plain English".
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.
I don’t see anything iffy in this. Seems pretty darn absolute to me.
boy is this guy STUPID!
must have flunked even 4th grade American history, ha!
My answer. Why not? and why is what I own any of your business?
Uber stupid.
Beyond Gore, beyond Pelosi. Hell, it’s even beyond CNN.
I see you're having more spelling and diction problems, Ross, you inhabitant of the Bell Curve's left side.
The words you're looking for, here, are "precisely as intended by their authors".
And militia, well an armed citizenry is a militia in waiting.
It all comes down to whether you rely on government upon yourself for your protection. The supreme already ruled that police have no obligation to step in, we see gun free zones become killing zones. Is that acceptable? Or, should we arm ourselves, defend ourselves, be responsible citizenry and provide for our own personal defense?
Even this is an untruth. Few actually had muskets, a musket is a military weapon, most had flintlock fowling pieces and some had flintlock rifles.
You mean like one of those assault Ruger 10/22s? ...or a “military grade” M&P Shield? Ugh...
>>the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the right of each state to have its own “well regulated militia.”
what an idiot.
Even if you ignore the fact that a “militia” is a gathering of armed citizens who intend to defend their common and personal property, why would people who still often referred to the nation in the plural as “these United States” feel the need to write an amendment to allow a sovereign state to keep a militia?
Because the Second Amendment has already been violated. Repeatedly. People like our "friend" Ross are rapists of the Constitution.
It's time to start talking about some real "common sense" on guns.
Repeal the National Firearms Act.
Repeal the Gun Control Act.
Repeal the Hughes Amendment.
"Gun control" is a tool of tyranny.
Who is this guy and why the H3ll should we care what his ignorant @$$ thinks about anything?
Olmos must not understand that the citizenry is guaranteed the right to always have weaponry on a par with government officials in order to hold on to their right to liberty. Government always corrupts freedom, as the Founders knew. That’s why they forbade a standing army, because such an army would have more power to subvert freedom.
They were right.
We cannot own military weapons without lots of money--who has a machine gun? A rocket-launcher? What we have today are simply the current versions of muskets--pistols, rifles, and shotguns. They serve the same purpose as their earlier counterparts. Nothing more, nothing less. I doubt many people privately owned cannon back in the 1700s, probably no more than people own cannons, machine guns, and rocket-launchers today.
And militia, well an armed citizenry is a militia in waiting.
It all comes down to whether you rely on government or upon yourself for your protection. The Supreme Court already ruled that police have no obligation to step in, we see gun free zones become killing zones. Is that acceptable? Or, should we arm ourselves, defend ourselves, be responsible citizenry, and provide for our own personal defense?
Hey. Someone near here has at least 1 of each of those. Go figure. ;-)
God given right Ross.
Facebook breeds these loons.
It's very easy to understand and is pretty darned absolute, like you said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.