• The forum is now running on the Xenforo platform. The first time you log in here, you may have to reset your password by doing a password recovery. Your login info will be sent to the email you have listed on your account; please check your spam or junk folders if you don't see it in your inbox. If that address is invalid, obviously you won't get the email: In that case, use the contact form or the envelope icon at the top right of the header to send us your member name and a current valid email address.




CA Magazine Ban ruled to violate 2nd Amend.

TheGDog

Member
After experiencing the Rodney King Riots... and having to drive my then Mother-in-Law back from where I was living in WestLA... down the 405 Fwy to Rosecrans Ave. ... and then all the way over to Berendo Ave. just shy of Figueroa... Just two blocks over from where the whole thing started-off... I saw some s**t that day I will never forget. And THAT is the reason why I value my 2nd Amendment rights and why I get pissed off at real "whitebread" "silver-spoon" type of folks that have no idea what happens out there in the real-world... sittin' there tellin' me what I need.

Rooftop Koreans.jpg
 

P304X4

Moderator
THAT statement is not True. Google the Puckle Gun.
Granted it was more advanced but not known to have ever been used, especially in war time:
Puckle gun: (also known as the Defence gun) was a primitive crew-served, manually-operated flintlock[SUP][1][/SUP] revolver patented in 1718 by James Puckle (1667–1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer. It was one of the earliest weapons to be referred to as a "machine gun", being called such in a 1722 shipping manifest,[SUP][2][/SUP] though its operation does not match the modern use of the term. It was never used during any combat operation or war.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] Production was highly limited and may have been as few as two guns.

My statement should have included the phrase "used in war".
 
Last edited:

P304X4

Moderator
2nd Amendment People, Things are different.
Look at world history and also current events around the world and explain to me how the tyrany that exists in other countries could never happen here. I've seen a few scenarios that show it can happen. I don't believe things are that different.
 

ltdann

Member
That's the beauty of our constitution and the bill of rights. It's unique in the world and why it's guarantees of freedom are so jealously guarded.

Take for example the recent events in New Zealand where an individual use firearms to attack a mosques. The NZ government is a parliamentary sovereignty, meaning it's titular head is the Queen of England. Same for Australia and Canada. The right to bear arms is not granted to the individual, it's a privilege granted by the government. You have to prove a reason to have a firearm and be granted a license by the police. Self Defense is not a valid reason, since protection of the citizenry is the function of the police.

After the mosque shooting, the government of NZ decided that semi-automatic firearms were no longer legal and the citizens were required to turn them in. The citizens have/had no recourse, since the "privilege" of firearms ownership is derived from the power of the state. They made that decision in just 3 days.

Remember, we fought a revolution to separate ourselves from this type of government. In our Constitution, the first words are " We The People..." meaning that the power of the state is derived from it's citizenry, not the government. The founding fathers felt so strongly about this that article II (2nd amendment) says "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"

Once again, it's people, not the government that have THE RIGHT.

In the photo above, you see people (Americans of Korean descent) defending their property with their 2nd amendment rights because their government was unable or unwilling to do it. This is not some far away, right wing strong hold. It's downtown LA, in 1992.....recent history.

So yeah, when government wants to take away or some how limit 2nd rights, it a struggle of who has the power. The people or the government? If the government is successful in stripping 2A rights, WE THE PEOPLE have stopped being citizens and become subjects.

In our form of government, if an individual abuses his rights, we strip the INDIVIDUAL of his rights, not the entire citizenry. It's something California has forgotten or wants us to forget. Sacramento wants subjects. Government is hard, CA wants easy. You can easily rule over a population that has no recourse and no ability to fight back. Just ask New Zealand, Australia, Canada or any other country w/o 2A rights.

We're not 2nd Amendment people, We're citizens of the United States of America, intent of preserving our god given rights.

Reread our Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

Derived from the consent of the governed. Right of the people.....

It all seems pretty clear to me. My government isn't in charge, the people are.
 
Last edited:

Neanderthal

Member
The single shot musket way back when argument doesn't hold water for me. The 2A is there to protect people from oppression. If the Redcoats had 30 rd magazines or automatic weapons, then you can bet that the citizens of the early United States would want to be afforded the same to protect themselves.

It's better to have and not need than to need and not have.
 
Does the first admendment only apply to newspapers, after all the founders never heard of television or radio or the internet
 

#1Predator

Member
ltdann - "We're not 2nd Amendment people, We're citizens of the United States of America, intent of preserving our god given rights.

Reread our Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"


Gun-rights supporters often say their right to keep and bear arms comes from the Second Amendment.They're wrong. That right comes, as do all of our rights, from God. The Founders and Framers presupposed and accepted as self-evident "unalienable rights, endowed by our Creator". None of the Amendments grant us any rights; what they do is forbid the government from infringing on them, as rulers have always done from the beginning of history. Babylonian slaves had the right to keep and bear arms, but their masters did not honor that right.
The Second Amendment does not even say we have a right; it presupposes that we do, and says the government must protect that right. "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". If there had been Progressives around in those days, they would have said "What right to keep and bear arms? Where did that come from? I don't see any law giving us that right. We don't need no stinkin' right." Because there were no Progressives then - people who think it's up to them or their betters to say what's a right and what's not - we have America.
James Madison, widely considered the Father of the Constitution, initially opposed the adoption of a bill of rights, because he feared that it could imply that our rights come from the government, rather than preceding all government. He was persuaded by his co-authors that the American people were of a character that would not accept such a way of thinking, and that a supplemental written guarantee would prevent the government from straying from its duty to protect our God-given rights.
If we're no longer of such a character, then God save us.
 

P304X4

Moderator
Are we talking about the enemy of the people like CNN MSNBC CBS ABC
I watch their take on some issues as well as Fox and a few Christian News programs. Its easy to cut through the bs and just get their view on what is based on actual facts.
 

P304X4

Moderator
ltdann - "We're not 2nd Amendment people, We're citizens of the United States of America, intent of preserving our god given rights.

Reread our Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"


Gun-rights supporters often say their right to keep and bear arms comes from the Second Amendment.They're wrong. That right comes, as do all of our rights, from God. The Founders and Framers presupposed and accepted as self-evident "unalienable rights, endowed by our Creator". None of the Amendments grant us any rights; what they do is forbid the government from infringing on them, as rulers have always done from the beginning of history. Babylonian slaves had the right to keep and bear arms, but their masters did not honor that right.
The Second Amendment does not even say we have a right; it presupposes that we do, and says the government must protect that right. "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". If there had been Progressives around in those days, they would have said "What right to keep and bear arms? Where did that come from? I don't see any law giving us that right. We don't need no stinkin' right." Because there were no Progressives then - people who think it's up to them or their betters to say what's a right and what's not - we have America.
James Madison, widely considered the Father of the Constitution, initially opposed the adoption of a bill of rights, because he feared that it could imply that our rights come from the government, rather than preceding all government. He was persuaded by his co-authors that the American people were of a character that would not accept such a way of thinking, and that a supplemental written guarantee would prevent the government from straying from its duty to protect our God-given rights.
If we're no longer of such a character, then God save us.
There are a number of people (even in politics) that are bent on regulating/pricing us out of the ablility to own weapons without denying our right to bear arms. The camel's nose is already under the tent.
 


Top Bottom