« BAF Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: About 'Gun Control' . . .

By: zzstar in BAF | Recommend this post (0)
Sun, 18 Feb 18 12:20 AM | 28 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Bash-a-Farter
Msg. 00878 of 06530
(This msg. is a reply to 00875 by Beldin)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Bullshit.

That was written in the time of muskets, gun powder, and a population of just over 3 million.

We are in the drones and rockets age, we even walked on tne moon.

Besides, even Scalia in the 2008 decision did not see an absolute right for ANYONE to own a gun, and furthermore that was about Organized militia, not Joe Blows around the country. You can shove your 2nd Amendment.

Keep trying, beat your chest up, but you are only providing alternative non facts. You are doing NRA talk points, for gun manufacturer survival and corrupt politians benefit.


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: About 'Gun Control' . . .
By: Beldin
in BAF
Sun, 18 Feb 18 12:10 AM
Msg. 00875 of 06530

The Second Amendment clearly states that the inalienable right of each American citizen to keep and bear arms (i.e., firearms) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED by the government - period, end of story. And, since the Founding Fathers clearly stated that another additional benefit associated with this individual, inalienable right is that such appropriately armed individual citizens could come together to form a military force (i.e., militia) in times of need to effectively oppose tyranny - whether from inside our own government or from outside the nation. So, the Founding Fathers obviously intended the firearms to be kept and born by individual American citizens to be of modern quality that would effectively compete with that of any opposing military force they would face. Since libtards like to call The Constitution a "living, breathing document," the definition of "arms" would obviously and necessarily develop with the times - from muskets, when it was written, to fully automatic assault rifles and explosive devices employed by modern day military forces. However, I am quite willing to concede that heavy machine guns, heavily armed vehicles, most explosive devices, etc. that are designed to inflict multiple casualties all at once are really only appropriate for applications against military forces; therefore, there really is no need for individual American citizens to keep such arms in their homes or bear them out in public - unless, of course, we are under military attack from subversive forces within our government or from foreign forces. Besides, such heavy weaponry is more than likely way beyond the means of most individual American citizens to buy and keep at home, anyway. 


« BAF Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next