Town Square

Post a New Topic

Our RIGHT to bear ARMS...

Original post made by Constitution, another community, on Aug 10, 2009

May We Never Forget!
United States Of America Was Attacked,

Pearl Harbor - December 7, 1941

and again

New York City - September 11, 2001,

both times with airplanes.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Furthermore, The Mexicans And Other Illegal Aliens Are Invading This Great Nation By The Thousands, Daily.
Is this a threat to the common defense of this great nation, what is all of our politicians doing to stop this threat? Simple Answer: NOTHING!!!


Is this total anarchy?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What about the citizens and students that are being run down on our streets daily by cars driven by foreigners some on student visa's others just illegal aliens.
Just exactly what are, the new weapons of war, Cars, Airplanes?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tragedy of monumental proportion, the worst single lone gunman attack against AMERICAN STUDENTS in this great nation of ours, carried out on U.S.A. soil, again by who?
A foreign student here on a resident alien visa who purchased guns LEGALLY!

State Departments Definition of, Alien: A foreign national who is not a United States citizen. Even though they may be living and or working in the U.S.A..

POLITICIANS; With all of our gun laws, why are foreigners allowed to purchase guns in this country and kill our children?

They do not have second amendment rights!

Where, an institution of higher learning in the great state or Commonwealth of Virginia.

Just exactly what are, the new weapons of war, Education?

Again there are more American heroes who stood in the face of danger from yet another foreign attacker, body blocking doors, sacrificing their own lives or personal safety so that others may escape and live, TRUE AMERICAN HEROES.

To the European nations running their mouths about gun control!

From day 1 of our children's lives in the United States of America, many of us school our children about the value of human life, the constitution and the second amendment and then we move on to gun safety, responsible gun ownership, responsible management of our wildlife, conservation if you will, and then we take them afield with us and teach them how to shoot straight, and then we teach them survival skills and then some we allow to enlist in the military of this great nation so as sometime when Europeans are being blown up, shot, killed, mass murdered, by tyrannical dictators we send you our best, to spill their blood, on your soil, saving YOUR ASSES.

Remember Alvin York, George S. Patton?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Government issues "and" The Second Amendment of the United States of America's Constitution - the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason for the second amendment.
In 1786, a decade after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the United States existed as a loose national government under the Articles of Confederation.
This confederation was perceived to have several weaknesses, among which was the inability to mount a Federal military response to an armed uprising in western Massachusetts known as Shays' Rebellion.

In 1787, to address these weaknesses, the Philadelphia Convention was convened with the charter of amending the Articles.

When the convention concluded with a proposed Constitution, those who debated the ratification of the Constitution divided into two camps;
Federalists (who supported ratification of the Constitution)
Anti-Federalists (who opposed it).

Among their objections to the Constitution, anti-Federalists feared creation of a standing army that could eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties as had happened recently in the American Colonies and Europe.

Although the anti-Federalists were ultimately unsuccessful at blocking ratification of the Constitution, through the Massachusetts Compromise they laid the groundwork to insure that a Bill of Rights would be drafted, which would provide constitutional guarantees against encroachment by the government of certain rights.

The Federalists on the other hand held that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary, particularly as the Federal Government could never raise a standard army powerful enough to overcome the militia.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leading Federalist James Madison wrote:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government;

still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.

This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.

To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federalist Noah Webster wrote:
Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One example given by Webster of a "power" that the people could resist was that of a standing army:

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression.

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 sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The controversy of a standing army for the United States existed in context of the Continental Forces that had won the Revolutionary War which consisted of both the standing Continental Army created by the Continental Congress and of State and Militia Units. In opposition, the British Forces consisted of a mixture of the standing British Army, Loyalist Militia, and mercenaries (e.g., Hessians).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federalists, believed that federal government must be trusted and that the army and the militias "ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal" of federal government. This belief was fundamentally stated by Alexander Hamilton:

The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The origin of the Second Amendment also occurred in context of an ongoing debate about "the people" fighting governmental tyranny, (as described by Anti federalists); or the risk of mob rule of "the people", (as described by the Federalists).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These feelings can be seen in the "a force superior" quote of Noah Webster above, and in contrast, when John Adams wrote of his fears about Anti federalists in the ongoing revolution in France:

The State is in critical Circumstances, and have been brought into them by the Heat and Impatience of the People. If nothing will bring them to consideration, I fear they will suffer.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reaching a compromise between these widely disparate positions was not easy, but nonetheless, a compromise was negotiated with the result being the
Second Amendment - the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Militia is the activity of one or more citizens organized to provide defense or paramilitary service, or those engaged in such activity.

The word can have four somewhat different meanings:
1. Defense activity, as well as those engaged in it, when it is defense of the public, its territory, property, and laws.
2. The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce the law, or to respond to a disaster
3. A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government
4. An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers, also called an Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resurrection of the AWB (Assault Weapons Ban 2007).
Currently there is new bill submitted by MCCARTHY of New York to re-ban previous firearms of the original AWB and expand to include many other firearms previously not considered to be "Assault Weapons".

The bill, as is drafted, has an "other uses" clause that may be used to expand the concept of an "Assault Weapon" to others not previously included.

However this bill directly contradicts rulings made on the 1986 Gun Owners Protection Act.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me see if I can figure this out, someone, from New York, a politician whose largest city was crippled, it's citizen's slain by a bunch of terrorist flying airplanes wants to ban assault weapons.
I am so sure that banning assault weapons will stop terrorist's from attacking the United States. If anything next time they will send ground troops KNOWING the average American citizen will be under gunned in a fire fight.

Meanwhile somewhere in Pakistan the terrorist responsible for the attack "Osamah Bin Laden" is kicked back eating figs and grapes while some of his many wives fans him with a palm leaf. As they all carry full-auto AK-47's.

Interestingly enough we have troops deployed close to where the terrorists responsible are that plotted the deaths of so many AMERICAN's.

Oh that's right the DEMOCRATS want the power to bring our troops home and just forget what happened in NEW YORK.

Also the DEMOCRATS want to raise the tax burden on the poor people of this nation by a whopping 30%. Maybe this is why they want our guns.

It's time for a big change in Washington.

Comments (8)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Aug 10, 2009 at 7:06 pm

constitution = homo.....Web Link

just because you're a homo c, it doesn't mean that you're a bad persosn...

signed,

amy the crybaby...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Oh my
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2009 at 7:49 pm

And this rant isn't ample proof enough that assault weapons *should* be regulated to those qualified/trained to use them? And that there should be a reasonable waiting period between application for a handgun and the license is granted?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Juan
a resident of Del Prado
on Aug 10, 2009 at 8:02 pm

I believe that any rational person can see what Obama and the libs are trying to do to our constitution in order to see why we must have our right to bear arms and that is to protect us from our own government.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Right
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2009 at 10:18 pm

And there are bears coming out of the woods to ambush our families the way they were in 1775, with no armed police to protect us? Times have changed, and laws evolve with the changing times. That's the way of any republic...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Right
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2009 at 10:48 pm

Oh, and: these very same folks who doggedly assert that it's their god-given, constitutional right to bear arms are very often the very same folks who express shock, outrage and utter befuddlement when a ten-year-old grandson/nephew/neighbor happens upon the very same lethal weapon in THEIR home, claiming not to have ANY clue how the "tike"/rascal/hooligan got ahold of the weapon in the first place. "But officer, it was locked up in my gun cabinet and *I* had the only key!"

Bullpucky!! It was stashed in your nightstand drawer, your kitchen cabinet, the tool cabinet in your garage... or under your mattress... fully loaded, at YOUR ready to use against all enemies, Foreign, Domestic, or (sadly) VERY domestic.

Look at the news headlines and tell me: how many more times do young children have to be maimed for life?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by True Republican
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2009 at 11:06 pm

Rush Limbaugh's guns keep you free. They keep you free.

Just say no to contraception and the culture of death.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PToWN94566
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2009 at 11:43 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

"Right", you're right on. Have we already forgotten about the 8 year old boy who lost control of a gun and was killed at a gun show? Also, some of the reasons posted above seem a bit far fetched. Yes 9/11 happened, but good would some person, with a gun, on the top of the building have done? Try and shoot down an airplane with a rifle?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PToWN94566
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 11, 2009 at 3:13 pm

PToWN94566 is a registered user.

Web Link

And yet another reason as to why we should have strict regulations concerning gun control.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Demographics present challenges for Livermore
By Tim Hunt | 13 comments | 1,227 views

Why we need the Water Bond
By Roz Rogoff | 13 comments | 796 views

November Ballot Prop 2 Devils or Angels in the Details?
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 784 views