2nd amendment is not about hunting

[bambam]

I was talking to an elderly gentleman yesterday who owns guns and hunts. He asked me if I really thought that we need 100- round clips to hunt.    He was in favor of going along with the liberal idiots who think it OK to ban "assault" rifles and high - capacity magazines, because we don't need them to hunt.  :doh2:He asked me why I thought we need them .     

I told him we don't need them to hunt. We need them for self-defense. He looked at me like I had lost my mind.     

The liberals want us to believe that the 2nd Amendment is about hunting, but it isn't. 

Just do a little research on the founding fathers, and the debate over the amendment, and you can clearly see the intent of the Amendment.

They were concerned about the right of self-defense, and the ability of the people to repel a foreign invasion, and also protection from tyrannical governments.... including our own.   

Here are just a few examples :

Patrick Henry : " guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined ".

James Madison: assured the citizens that they need not fear government because of " the advantage of being armed " .

George Mason : " to disarm the people ; that is the best and most effectual way to enslave them".

Alexander Hamilton : " 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 ...........who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens " .

Noah Webster : " Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the crowd, because the people are armed" .

Thomas Jefferson : " The beauty of the 2nd amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it "

Jefferson : " No freeman shall be debarred the use of firearms " .

There are more, but did any of you see any mention of hunting in any of those quotes ? The liberals know that if they can make this a debate about hunting, they will eventually succeed, because only a small minority of Americans actually hunt.

This will hopefully give you some "ammo" to use against anyone you talk to who wants to ban guns, or magazines, or ammo.


Don't know who said this , but I saw it somewhere last week ( might have been on here ?)  : " Be careful when you take the gun from my cold ,dead hands, because the barrel will be hot " .

_________________

[FinsnFur]

Isnt it truly amazing how ignorant some people are.
Ya know I really limit how involved I get into some of the debates that present themselves right now with the gun control, because I dont feel I know enough to correct or educate someone if need be.

But ya know what, last night me and the neighbor and his wife went out for supper and came back to their place and sat around and shot the breeze.
The conversation led into gun control somehow. Ohhhhh my gawd I thought I was gonna rack both their heads together before it was over.
His wife says they should ban every gun in America. Put an end to all this.
I said you really dont see how that would make it all worse? You think all the criminals are going to turn in their guns too?
She says they would have to! 

She then says they will never mess with the Constitution so we gun nuts should chill anyway. All they want to do is prevent certain firearms.
I said listen for a sec. The second amendment says that we have the right to keep and bear arms. Put restrictions on that and attaching certain strings....her husband cut me off by yelling hang on honey this is where he ties to reel you in!
I looked at him and thought to myself you have got to be kidding me. Are these people that I work with and lived next door to for the last 20 years really like this?
I just shook my head.

As it got more and more heated I tried using one of Uncle Ted's quotes. I said the shooter in the Connecticut shooting alone broke 41 laws. Do you think that this 42nd law would have stopped the whole thing?
She actually said yes I do, as she folder her arms and looked down her nose at me. "He wouldnt have had access to anything that he used that day," she says.

OMG! it amazes me thats theirs people this freekin ignorant.

The conversation got more and more heated until she started screamin her debate. Her husband who backed her 100% through it all, finally said we need to talk about something else honey cause Jim's just not going to get it, and it's not worth out friendship.

I learned more about those people last night then I did in the 20 years I have been living here, and I'm am literally appalled that people that uneducated on it actually fight it like they. wow.

[Dave]

That's the truth, Bambam, and thanks for some 'ammo' against some of the jackasses like Jim's neighbors.

And Jim, the first time something goes awry in your neighborhood they'll come running to your place to be safe. 

[shaddragger]

That's the truth, Bambam, and thanks for some 'ammo' against some of the jackasses like Jim's neighbors.

Ditto for me. It is AMAZING how many of Jim's neighbors I have met.

[coyote101]

It does not matter what you, I or anyone else thinks the 2nd Amendment means. It does not matter what you, I or anyone else wishes it means. It does not matter what you, I or anyone else believes it ought to mean. The only thing that matters is what the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that it means.

If you want to know that, then read the majority opinion in the case DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER written by Justice Antonin Scalia. It is a long read but worth the effort. It is a fascinating history lesson and pretty well covers the meaning of the phrases 'well regulated', 'militia', and 'keep and bear arms' as they were understood at the time of the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is great information to have if you are going to debate the issue with the uninformed. Particularly if they like to throw out the old argument about the 2nd Amendment only applying the government regulating the militia.

There is much more to it, but this is the gist of what the court ruled: "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."

Just remember, you can educate someone who is ignorant, but you can't cure stupid.

Pat

[MI VHNTR]

It's amazing to see the amount of gun owners that still support the muslim gun grabber. Furthermore, it's sad to see how few gun owners do not belong to a pro gun organization. Hopefully, they wake up soon.

[Frogman]

I like the argument I heard somewhere.  It goes like this . . .

You and your family are in a room.  On the table are three things.  A loaded gun.  A cell phone.  And a note.  On the note it says, "In one minute three criminals are going to burst through the door, beat the husband, rape the wife and daughter, and slit the son's throat." 

Which item on the table are you going to reach for?

I think that was from the Travis Haley you tube video I posted here earlier?


Jim

[Frogman]

It does not matter what you, I or anyone else thinks the 2nd Amendment means. It does not matter what you, I or anyone else wishes it means. It does not matter what you, I or anyone else believes it ought to mean. The only thing that matters is what the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that it means.

If you want to know that, then read the majority opinion in the case DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER written by Justice Antonin Scalia. It is a long read but worth the effort. It is a fascinating history lesson and pretty well covers the meaning of the phrases 'well regulated', 'militia', and 'keep and bear arms' as they were understood at the time of the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is great information to have if you are going to debate the issue with the uninformed. Particularly if they like to throw out the old argument about the 2nd Amendment only applying the government regulating the militia.

There is much more to it, but this is the gist of what the court ruled: "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."

Just remember, you can educate someone who is ignorant, but you can't cure stupid.

Pat

Good point, Pat, but I'm really concerned that it was only a 5 - 4 decision??  Have any of these SCOTUS decisions been overturned??

Jim