SHall Not Be Infringed Upon

You mean like the 18th amendment . . . that was overturned by the 21st amendment?

Yes, there is a process.

Dictating by Execuitive Fiat is not part of that process.

Read the Constitution it explains it clearly.

The 18th amendment was wrong to begin with. Rights are inalienable, meaning they cannot be repealed by the amendment process. The 18th took a right away and the 21st corrected it. And I am saying this as a person who has never and does not drink alcoholic drinks of any kind. The 18th would have never affected my life directly if I was alive back then. Freedom is not about me, it is about everyone.

The 16h amendment, like the 18th is also taking a right away and should be repealed. It wasn't long after the founders passed away to where politicians forget the purpose of the amendments. The first 10 are about what rights we have and how the government will protect those rights. Everything after that should be about either enumerating more rights or creating more protections for our rights.

The 13th and 14th amendment were great in that they gave slaves all of the same rights that free persons had but it also neutered the 10th amendment in the process. The 10th is important, not just because of states rights but because it says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Many people forget the last 4 words of the 10th. It is about the people. If the 10th gets thrown out then all "powers" and rights not specifically mentioned previously are no longer "reserved" for the people.

The left HATES the 10th amendment. Many on the left thinks that by not repealing the 10th we can bring back slavery. First off NO IT WON'T. Second off, there are more sex slaves in existence today than there ever was African slaves and the government is doing very little to stop it, especially the Democrat party. Third off, European man learned to enslave Africans from Muslims. While Europeans and their descendants in America stopped the practice well over a century ago, Muslims have not. They still enslave Africans and everyone else.

An assault weapon is not a right.

Please define when a weapon becomes and "assault weapon".

You don't have a dictionary or Google?

My dad bought me a .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle when I was 15.

Is that an assault weapon?

An AR-15 fires either a NATO 5.56 (or 0.219" diameter round) or a Remington .223 caliber round. Caliber is in inches. My .22 rifle falls right in between those calibers. So is my rifle an assault rifle?

What if my rifle has a pistol grip on it like the AR-15 does? Does that then make it an assault rifle? What if it had a telescoping stock instead of a wooden stock? What is it about a telescoping stock and a pistol grip that makes it more "assaulty"? A telescoping stock is so that it can be adjusted to the length of the shooter's arms. It does not make it any deadlier. A pistol grip (which on an AR-15 is more decoration than anything) is to help diffused the energy of the recoil. Without it the recoil energy is concentrated on the shoulder. With a pistol grip it is diffused between the hand and the shoulder. That does not make the rifle any more "assaulty". AR-15's don't have the recoil of a larger caliber rifle so a pistol grip is mostly decoration.

Really the only difference between an AR-15 rifle and another rifle that is considered an assault rifle and a hunting rifle is that Democrats, liberals and other assorted leftists seem to pee their pants when they see a black rifle with a pistol grip and a telescoping stock.

I guess Democrats want to ban them because they just can't stop pissing themselves whenever they see on or even think about them. That must get very embarrassing for them.

I have a better solution. Instead of banning them (turning the law abiding into criminals), the left should wear Depends undergarments. That should end the embarrassment.

Is your fear of assault rifles because they are black? The Democrat party has had a very long history of hating and enslaving black people so I'm guessing the color of the rifle must have something to do with it.

No, I rely on you being able to tell me which weapons people should be allowed to carry and which should be reserved for the government.

If you can't define something then you shouldn't use it as part of your argument.

It's like asking "What counts as a violent crime?"
I ain't gonna bother.

Because you have no valid answer.

The term you use is a made up one . Websters will define slamg terms and words with friends will allow youto use ZA because it is now an accepted word.

You are not even an American and want to tell us what guns we should have. We beat your standing army with our assault weapons once. We did it a second time in 1812 and if you try and take our arms again you will lose again.

Your commanders said we should not be shooting their officers because the troopswould become an uncivilized mob. They don't trust you. You are their subject. You are no more than cannon fodder to them.

You even go so far as to spew your socialist garbage that the Government taking over and rationing healthcare is freedom. Ever hear of Alfie Evans?

Thank you for demonstrating your complete lack of understanding of Socialism and pretty much everything.

You Marxists are all the same. You don't study history and therefore repeat the same mistakes expecting different results.

Your socialism only worked until you run out of other people's money.

"Marxists"
😂😂😂😂
Keep making my day!

Then don’t use it as talking point. :/

Excuse me are you referring to my use of the term asault rifle in reference to the use of the Pennsylvania and Kentucky long rifles (rifled barrels) as opposed to the standard British asault muskets (smooth bored).

Which brings up the gun grabbers contention that the Second Amendment is limited to muskets.

We actually had weapons much superior to muskets at the time of its adoption. Not to mention the proliferation of repeating rifle prototypes.

But that is history, why would a leftist ever want to learn about that or anything else for that matter.

I'm mostly talking about his inability to define 'assault weapon' (beyond the presumed definition of 'black and cool-looking') yet willingness to use that buzzword as ammunition in a debate. It's patently foolish.

OK, when the comments get so spread out I have a hard time tracing them back.

Give or take...

When the government decides what you can and cannot own then freedom is gone. It is none of the government's business what I own. BTW, I do not own an AR-15 or any other so called assault rifles however I know a lot of people who do. Freedom is not about me, it is about everyone.

You will NOT be any safer when the government takes assault weapons away from law abiding citizens. If you think you are then you have just drunk the Kool-aid rather than looking at the facts.

The government decides you can't own or make bombs. Does that mean you're not free?

In principle, yes. Our right to defend ourselves from tyranny is absolute. It has always meant by any means necessary.

However, bombs offer too great of a danger for the owner and those who live near him/her. In the event that we ever go to war with our government to oust a tyrant who, lets say for example, becomes president by fraudulent means, thinks our rights are not absolute and rules by executive order to take away our fundamental rights (and that is just an example, I am not talking about anyone in particular.), then the right of the people to be "well regulated" or property armed must include explosives.

By no means am I calling for any sort of violence or war. War should only come after all non-violent diplomatic means have been exhausted.

This right was first enumerated in the Magna Carta, when Barons were given the right to correct the King by force. But it was first mentioned in the Old Testament of the Bible.

In Psalms 149 David sings:
Let the saints be joyful in glory: let them sing aloud upon their beds.
Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two edged sword in their hand;
To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people;
To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron;
To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the Lord.

So what is "not absolute" are our leaders. They must be replaced if they dishonor our liberty by diplomatic means at first and after years to trying that then by force. This is the right of every person alive and it is an absolute and inalienable right.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with tyranny. It's about a MILITIA.

Nice try. Who were the militia? THE PEOPLE. We didn't have a standing army when the Constitution was drafted because our founders did not believe in them. They saw how other governments used the military for selfish reasons. They envisioned that the average ordinary citizen would rise up to defend their freedom and this land from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

WE are the militia, NOT our military. I believe that if our founders understood the types of weapons of war and the technology involved to operate those weapons they would understand the need we have of a trained military now. Even so they might still object to such military and ask why the people cannot be trained to use these highly technical weapons.

But then it becomes a matter of ownership. Only a very small percentage of the people can afford a nuclear missile and that would make having a "well regulated militia" impossible.

Like I said the right of the people to defend themselves from a king or a president is inalienable.

"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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - Declaration of Independence - 2nd paragraph.

This does not apply to just the English crown but to any government. This is not a new concept as, like I said previously dates back to ancient Israel. It was also enumerated in the Magna Carta.

“Section 61 of the Magna Carta provided that if the King (John) did not follow the provisions of the charter the Barons should have a right to correct the King by force until the King should begin to follow the articles of the Charter. This the right of lawful revolution was born into the constitutional law of England. It then stands to reason that the right to bear arms rests on three solid English rights, the right of revolution; the right of group self-preservation; and the right of self-defense. These basic rights are a portion of the English common law and had evolved prior to the landing at Jamestown in 1607. Further, these right applied to all Englishmen and not merely to those living in England.” - “The Right to Bear Arms, A Study in the Judicial Misinterpretation”, by Stuart R. Hays. William & Mary College Law Review, 1960, Vol 2

Official organised militia, not a self proclaimed guy who wants to own an assault rifle for some strange reason.

Yes, I know that we are not even in the top 10 any more. That is because of the Democrats quest for power and control. Rome was at one time the most freest nation to have existed (perhaps with the except of ancient Israel for a time). It took about 200 years for Rome to go from being the freest to one of the least which just proceeded the collapse. Once they accepted the Caesars as their rulers it was all over for them.

Canada is following right down the toilet. Trudeau is just as committed to the Great Reset as Biden is. So enjoy your status while you can because pretty soon the whole world will be worse off than Venezuela and less free than North Korea. This is what they mean by "Build Back Better".

I suggest actually reading about the countries ahead of you before blaming it on Democrats.
*Cough cough They all have universal healthcare cough cough*

So?

The 2nd amendment was NEVER about the "Official organized militia". It was always about "a self proclaimed guy who want to own an assault rifle for " whatever reason he or she wants because this is a free country and you have to right, responsibility or authority to decide what someone else buys or even why the purchase it.

Do you even understand what freedom is???? Do you care about freedom or do you demand that someone to tell you how to live your life? Or even worse, are the kind of malignant narcissist who must control how everyone lives their lives.

If someone wants an assault rifle then what is it to you? Does it even matter? If you think you have a need to tell others how to live your life then it is only fair that they should tell you how to live your life.

Typical rubbish from an American "patriot".

America did not invent freedom. The concept has been around for centuries but only few have ever had it. About 5%. It used to be that the world looked at America as an example of what freedom is all about. France even gave us a statue celebrating lady liberty.

The Marxism made its way into colleges and universities around the world and even though every time it is tried it has been an utter and complete failure. The people live in abject poverty and their governments treat them like insects who can be killed just because they got in the way.

And still after hundreds of examples the worlds colleges churn out new Marxists every day who are brainwashed into thinking that "they will do it right this time". There will never be a "this time" because Marxism is based on a flawed and corrupt premise.

Yes, I am patriotic about America but only in the fact that we discovered a way, if only momentarily, to give the most freedom and the most prosperity to every citizen than any country before us. We never copyrighted the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Any other country in the world can take from the principles laid out in both documents and make it work in their own nations but they don't because malignant narcissists are always attracted to political power and they are driven to control everyone. And that is why the Democrats (and many Republicans) have been working feverishly to destroy our freedoms. Control freaks gotta control.

There are 3 types of people in the world. Malignant narcissists who have to control people, regular narcissists who will sell their grandmothers to be controlled and the rest of us who neither need or what your types in our lives. We demand that you leave us alone and let us determine how best to live our lives. Because there hasn't been a narcissist who have ever lived who knows better how to run someone else's live better than that individual.

You're not even in the top 10 freest or most democratic countries. (Unlike Canada)
Maybe once you were the shining beacon of hope, but not for a long time.
And you don't have a single Marxist politician. Much of what Americans label "Marxist" or "Socialist" is ordinary common sense things like universal healthcare.

Did you even think about what you are saying? And to what purpose are militias to be formed? Is it to protect business interests abroad? The ONLY valid use of a militia or our current military is to defend the people from tyranny. Every law enforcement officer, every member of the military and even the president of the United States swears an oath to defend this nation from all enemies both foreign AND DOMESTIC.

Who would a domestic enemy be if not a tyrant?

Dude a pencil can be an assault weapon have u seen John wick? Literally anything can be an assault weapon. U can cut someone with a piece of paper

Can you explain what an “assault weapon” is for me? I don’t know what that is.

It's a common term with its own definition. Look it up.

Private property ownership is the ultimate right. Like I told you in another comment, the AR-15 is so infrequently used in homicides that it is just idiotic to go after them.

This has nothing to do with stopping crime and all to do with controlling the people. It is punishing the innocent and making criminals out of the law abiding. This is how tyranny begins.

Tell that to the majority of Western nations that have sensible gun control for years and aren't slipping into tyranny.

Where do get the idea that they aren't slipping into tyranny? The fact that they do not honor the right of self defense IS tyranny.

And yet they DO honour the right to self defence.

Not really, they confine it to just a handful of means of defense and some countries prosecute you if you do defend yourself.

You cannot even own a knife in London. What's next? Hammers?, cricket bats?, rocks? hands?

They still have homicides by firearms in all of Europe. If you take Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston and a few other cities out of the equation we have a lower homicide rate of every country in Europe.

Incidentally those cities have the most excessive gun laws in the nation. BECAUSE GUN LAWS DON'T WORK. All they have ever done is punished the law abiding and paint targets on their backs for criminals. That is why criminals go out of their way to look for gun free zones to commit crime. Because criminals really do not like it when their victims shoot back. It really pisses them off. So much so that most times criminals run away at just the sight of a gun in the hands of their intended victim. What they don't run away from very often is baseball bats.

"If you take out all the places with the worst crime rate, we're lower!"

I don't think I properly stressed the point. So let me reword it correctly. If you take away the places with the strictest gun control laws, then we have a lower homicide rate than any country in Europe. BECAUSE GUN LAWS DON'T WORK.

Do you seriously think a psychopathic leftist (who comprise the majority of mass shooters in this country) going to say "well they passed one to many gun laws, I guess I'll stop now". Psychotic people don't pay attention to any gun laws in the first place. The vast majority of criminals steal their firearms. All of the background checks in the world won't stop a criminal with a stolen gun.

There hasn't been a single gun law passed that has had any effect, even slightly, to reduce crime. In fact it is the opposite. It increases crime.

And that is exactly why the cities with the most strict gun control laws in the nation have the highest crime rate.

Criminals really hate it when we shoot back. It is just common sense.

Tell that to the myriad countries where gun laws DO work.

I am not listening to propaganda, YOU ARE. I am using my brain and making my own determinations.

It is just so obvious to anyone who dares to just think out side of the box just a little bit to realize that if citizens are armed criminals will be less inclined to shoot them. And as a matter of fact criminals go out of their way to avoid being shot. The target gun free zones.

That is just common sense. The statistics always bear that out. It is proven time and time again. The only time it is questioned is by politicians who want to disarm private citizens. Those politicians NEVER talk about how they will disarm criminals, they just want to turn the law abiding into criminals. You cannot disarm criminals with gun laws. It just does not happen. By the very definition a criminal is someone who does not care about any laws in the first place. If they did, they would not be criminals.

I haven't seen anything in the news lately or ever that said Canada is now murder and crime free. You have a very small population compared to us. Gun laws is not the reason why you don't have as many murders because gun laws ONLY affect the law abiding. The people who would never use their guns to commit murder.

The have been guns in my family for as long as guns have existed. I have a whole lot of family members who hunt every deer season. Yet no one in my family history and no one currently has ever committed murder. No one has fired any type of firearm at anyone for any reason with the exception of my uncle on my mom's side. His reason was because he was a soldier in Italy during WWII. I also have an ancestor on my mom's side who fought in the American Civil War and further back (still on my mom's side) who fought in the Battle of Culloden in Scotland in 1747.

I am just saying this because guns do not make people criminals. If it did our forefathers would have made the human race extinct long before any of us were born.

I'm just stating the facts.

I'll tell that to any country who disrespects basic human rights. Gun laws DO NOT WORK ANYWHERE. They are just a means to controlling people's lives. You may think they work but it is only because those nations have a far smaller population than we do. If they had the same population we have they would have the same problems.

China has a larger population but the people are not even free to think for themselves. Their government requires that everyone tells on their neighbor. That is not how I want to live my life. India has a larger population and they are free but they are also religious. The live by the morals of Hinduism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Sikh, Bahai and increasingly Islam. After that every other nation (with maybe the exception of Russia, I haven't checked on their population) has much fewer people. Fewer people commit fewer crimes. Even per capita crimes drops in smaller and especially more rural populations.

In nations that have fewer gun restrictions the rural populations are always the most armed populations and yet they have fewer crimes.

Stop listening to the propaganda.
https://www.center4research.org/does-gun-control-really-work/