Statement from the NRA regarding White House meeting

The 2nd Amendment will never be trumped by a wannabe despot's 'whims'. It is what it is............

"The welfare of humanity has always been the alibi of tyrants"

Uh, nuh uh. It will be civil war time before you infringe on our Constitutional right.
 
Darla said:
The man in that video threatened to start shooting people. When you make threats, law enforcement visits you. If you STFU, they go away. If you start shooting, guess what happens? They shoot back. Spoiler: They win, you die.

There is no sequel to this story. This is the script. The rest is all histrionics. I have never seen a bigger bunch of nonsense than the nonsense on this board lately about guns.

I just told you what is going to happen. Deal with it or don't deal with it. No one cares.
Click to expand...

They always talk about it like every single gun owner is going to come out & join them and there will be this mass armed revolution.

In reality, it will just be a few nutters, who will be arrested immediately. If they ever do get out of jail - depending on how much damage they do - they will never be able to own a firearm again.
 
Thing1 said:
They always talk about it like every single gun owner is going to come out & join them and there will be this mass armed revolution.

In reality, it will just be a few nutters, who will be arrested immediately. If they ever do get out of jail - depending on how much damage they do - they will never be able to own a firearm again.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
Darla said:
I will tell you what is going to happen:

Biden will make some common sense recommendations. Obama will enact what he can, legislation will be drawn up for what he can't. They will be mild no-brainers.

Freaks will do what freaks do; they will freak. As seen here. That freak will be getting visits from law enforcement. Some of these freaks will die. This guy here is STY level. Big talk, and if they talk too much, they will get visited and either die, be imprisoned, or STFU.


The American people will decide whether they side with aforementioned freaks or with the mild, common-sense Biden approach.

Spoiler: They will side with Biden.


The End.
Click to expand...
another hypocrite lib who will dance in the blood of children and rejoice at the deaths of gun owners by their beloved state. when you and your kids are killed during the resulting civil war, I hope your last thoughts are of me and of how right I was.
 
Thing1 said:
They always talk about it like every single gun owner is going to come out & join them and there will be this mass armed revolution.

In reality, it will just be a few nutters, who will be arrested immediately. If they ever do get out of jail - depending on how much damage they do - they will never be able to own a firearm again.
Click to expand...
i've told you how this ill go. dont be too shocked when it happens.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
any attempt to limit the rights of we the people makes YOU the enemy of the constitution.
Click to expand...

The right wing robes say you're wrong.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

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 Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.
 
Bfgrn said:
The right wing robes say you're wrong.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

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 Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.
Click to expand...
and I've consistently called Scalia a liar about his supposed 'originalism'. he's no more an originalist than was warren burger. Scalia is a big government conservative 'law and order' justice who perverts the constitution in order to implement a police state. the sooner you realize that the courts are in collusion with the fascists, the better off you'll be.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and I've consistently called Scalia a liar about his supposed 'originalism'. he's no more an originalist than was warren burger. Scalia is a big government conservative 'law and order' justice who perverts the constitution in order to implement a police state. the sooner you realize that the courts are in collusion with the fascists, the better off you'll be.
Click to expand...

Here is your biggest problem, our founding fathers don't agree with you either.

Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

more
 
Bfgrn said:
Here is your biggest problem, our founding fathers don't agree with you either.

Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

more
Click to expand...

What an outstanding post. It's how I have always read the 2nd.

I have never understood the talk about tyranny in modern-day America. This is basically as free as people have been in recorded history. There are endless checks & balances built into the Constitution and other governing documentation to ensure that America will never fall prey to any kind of tyranny, even what the founders called the tyranny of the majority. And believe you me, they knew their tyranny. They experienced the real kind - not the fake, made-up kind.
 
Thing1 said:
They always talk about it like every single gun owner is going to come out & join them and there will be this mass armed revolution.

In reality, it will just be a few nutters, who will be arrested immediately. If they ever do get out of jail - depending on how much damage they do - they will never be able to own a firearm again.
Click to expand...

I just learned this morning that Big Bad Ted Nugents got a deferment from Vietnam, he denies rumors of how he flunked his physical, but he avoided military duty! What a bag of hot air.
 
Rana said:
I just learned this morning that Big Bad Ted Nugents got a deferment from Vietnam, he denies rumors of how he flunked his physical, but he avoided military duty! What a bag of hot air.
Click to expand...

That guy is such a cartoon. It's always amazing to me when he shows up on a show like Hannity & they treat him with all kinds of reverence, like he's their resident expert or something. He's just a loon.
 
Bfgrn said:
Here is your biggest problem, our founding fathers don't agree with you either.

Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “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.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

more
Click to expand...
please use a less biased source, like maybe the actual documents and commentaries from the framers that say otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top