.png)
Who's Right?
- Thread starter MR Redneck
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
The Heller case clearly provided individual's the right to possess firearms for self-defense and in-the-home within federal environments, but beneath the umbrella of the original intent of the Founders in regard to citizen militia. SCOTUS used this umbrella thankfully to broaden individual rights within "federal enclaves".
In regard to originality with the Founders, fear of a centralized tyranny by a central government was the Founders concern, therefore the 2A was in regard to counterbalancing federal power. States rights in regard to the 2A was not part of the original intent of our Founders. As to McDonald, the SCOTUS used the 14th amendment to make their case. The original intent of the 2A was insufficient alone, therefore substantiates my case original intent of the Founders did not include states. I don't argue such a decision by SCOTUS was wrong, just that the original intent of our Founders did not include the 2A to apply to states.
I am all for individual gun rights. I just argue with those who singularly use the 2A beyond the Founders original intent to support their opinions of what they think the 2A should mean. In other words, Heller and McDonald are good law, and they expand our individual liberties. However, they were needed because the 2A standing alone was insufficient simply because of the narrow view of our Founders (no fault of their own) when the 2A was constructed.
I know I am smart. You are experiencing this scenario. Enjoy.
In regard to originality with the Founders, fear of a centralized tyranny by a central government was the Founders concern, therefore the 2A was in regard to counterbalancing federal power. States rights in regard to the 2A was not part of the original intent of our Founders. As to McDonald, the SCOTUS used the 14th amendment to make their case. The original intent of the 2A was insufficient alone, therefore substantiates my case original intent of the Founders did not include states. I don't argue such a decision by SCOTUS was wrong, just that the original intent of our Founders did not include the 2A to apply to states.
I am all for individual gun rights. I just argue with those who singularly use the 2A beyond the Founders original intent to support their opinions of what they think the 2A should mean. In other words, Heller and McDonald are good law, and they expand our individual liberties. However, they were needed because the 2A standing alone was insufficient simply because of the narrow view of our Founders (no fault of their own) when the 2A was constructed.
I know I am smart. You are experiencing this scenario. Enjoy.
JSDinTexas
New Member
The 2A speaks for itself, no matter how you all wish to spin it.
Based on that comment, you are one of several who simply need to sit back and read what I write to expand your denominator of knowledge.
No Worries, I am Smart and Got Sig!
JSDinTexas
New Member
Based on that comment, you are one of several who simply need to sit back and read what I write to expand your denominator of knowledge.
No Worries, I am Smart and Got Sig!
Yes, I am sure you know more than the founding fathers and any other statesman that ever lived - I bow to your intelligence and insight oh great king.
Based on that statement, it is obvious I know more about our Founding Fathers than you. But, you are not alone in that regard.
Our Founding Fathers did not insist on the Bill of Rights at our Constitutional Convention. It was the Anti-Federalists thank God who insisted the Bill of Rights be included. The anti-Federalists dragged the Founders to the table with our Bill of Rights, which included the 2A. Something tells me you have no clue what I am talking about.
JSDinTexas
New Member
Yes, you know more than anyone, absolutely.
To truely apply the comparison of " Load Bearing", such as in Engineering, we would have to look at changes to that load. Such as adding to the load of a structure. You cant just build additional stories to a building and expect the original structure to support it. That's why you add more columns to support the new additions.
To compair this analogy to the right to keep and bear arms, we must refer to the size of government and the population. When increasing the load, such as population, the second amendment would clearly require more guns to be kept and worn!!
The only Patriotic method to define any Constitutional Amendment is in the words of the people who wrote them.
Todays methods of twisting the founders words are nothing more than infringement to create Elitist laws and restrictions.
Simple but true.
I see you can cut and paste. Again, if it would have been left to our Founding Fathers, we would not have had a 2A in the first place!! Again, the Bill of Rights and the 2A were products of the Anti-Federalists at the Constitutional Convention. Not sure of the source you used to cut and paste, but obviously they are stupid when they used "the founders words"...lol
I suggest you read, seek first to understand, and then to be understood.
Based on that comment, you are one of several who simply need to sit back and read what I write to expand your denominator of knowledge.
No Worries, I am Smart and Got Sig!
Do you pee your pants when traveling through Arizona. I dont because I actually find their laws to be in line with the 2nd amendment.
If all this crap you claim is true, explain why most other states have better right to carry laws than Texas does?
What the hell are you talking about, cut and paste?
Nothing you post makes any damn sence to me, just like the crap you posted about Texas seceding form the Union because of the crap going on in Mexico.
I guess your ideas are a little over my head.
I already have in threads dealing with OC, and the 2A.
I support Texas secession, but not sure where you gathered it was because of the "crap going on in Mexico". In fact, I don't believe I have ever posted my reasons for secession besides posting the TNM website.
You are right about ideas being over your head. That we can agree upon.
Spin it my friend.
How about you try being consistent next time?
Sure. Extensive and all-encompassing replies via posting make that difficult at times, which is why multiple posts relating to a particular thread by a single poster should be reviewed as a whole. But internet posting sites do in fact make that difficult.
