Marine rifleman thinks we shouldnt own ARs (Read 2643 times)

ren

Deeds Not Words

Rocky

Re: Marine rifleman thinks we shouldnt own ARs
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2016, 03:52:00 PM »
Lot's of mis-information here, even for a "vet" of 4 yrs.
No detail of where he's fired this "killing machine" other than on the range
“I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.”
                                                           Franklin D. Roosevelt

Heavies

Re: Marine rifleman thinks we shouldnt own ARs
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2016, 02:30:08 AM »
Most Marines I know are into guns.
Most Marines I know are into America.
They take their oath seriously.
To protect and defend America and the constitution.
The constitution states we have a right to keep an bear arms.
Just saying...

dustoff003

Re: Marine rifleman thinks we shouldnt own ARs
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2016, 02:38:35 AM »
Most Marines I know are into guns.
Most Marines I know are into America.
They take their oath seriously.
To protect and defend America and the constitution.
The constitution states we have a right to keep an bear arms.
Just saying...

As dumbgun says there is no expiration date on the oath... Semper Fi


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

230RN

Re: Marine rifleman thinks we shouldnt own ARs
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2016, 04:41:05 AM »
While he was supposedly defending his country with a rifle, did it ever occur to him that there is also a right to individual defense?

-----------------------------
Terry's Twelve Tenets:

1.  Just about every creature on earth has some method of defending itself, from the porcupine to the family dog... and even including many plants and insects.  Even kittens carry "concealed weapons."

2.  We may take this as a strong indication that personal defense, even of humans, is an inherent part of nature and is a right not to be denied.... whether you call this a "natural right" or a "G-d-given right."

3.  This right --besides being an individual one --is also extendable to groups, whether this be the family, the tribe, the State or Province, or the nation as a whole.  It is, using the same word as in our Declaration of Independence, "inalienable."  It can't be taken away, although it may be infringed upon by persons or parties with superior force.  The "superior force" is usually that wielded by governments.

4.  When the United States was formed, the founders were well aware that the usual progression of all governments tended toward tyranny --a fact acknowledged by any reader of history, be it from the founders' point in history or from our present day's.  They therefore took steps in writing the Constitution of this country to restrict the powers of government to encroach upon the rights of citizens.  But it clearly left all "unenumerated" (not spelled-out) rights to the individual States, or to the people. 

5.  However, when that Constitution was about to be ratified by the 13 States/Colonies, some of them felt that the business of "unenumerated rights" was insufficiently strong and wanted certain fundamental ones spelled out clearly.

6.  They therefore got together and wrote out a specific Bill Of Rights (hereafter "BOR") for exactly this reason: "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the Federal government's] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added [to the Constitution]" in the form of Ten Amendments to that Constitution as it was orginally submitted to the States/Colonies for ratification.  This statement of purpose appears in the Preamble to the BOR.

7.  The Second Amendment of the BOR, guaranteeing* the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, is the shortest restrictive clause in the BOR, if not in the entire constitution.  Pre-adoption discussion and argument regarding limitations and "reasonable restrictions" to this fundamental right were settled in the discussions and arguments preceding the BOR's final adoption. 

8.  Therefore, without "channeling" the Founders, it is obvious that the ultimate decision was to not include any limitations or "reasonable" restrictions, but rather to state it as boldly and baldly, explicitly and emphatically, as possible.

9.  The constitution is widely recognized as the highest law of the land, at least among those most sensitive to their rights and the protection it affords to those rights --and those protections have been recognized to be applicable to the several states as well.

10.  Therefore, stating it as firmly as possible, any laws, wherever and whenever enacted, which infringe in any way on that clearly stated personal right, are immanently and inherently unconstitutional on their face

11.  Therefore, any "case law" or legislative law, again stating it as firmly as possible, which endorses those infringements as legitimate and constitutional, is immanently and inherently wrong.

12.  Thus, anything relating to the "legal system's" own abilities to declare  its own authority to assume jurisdiction which is outside the plain language of the second amendment is reflexive and tautological, and cannot be accepted.  In other words, any case law or legislative law, regardless of the subject of the original case involved, which is used to support the legal system's own  authority in second amendment matters, is inappropriate.  No other interpretation is reasonable.

And thus it has been since 10 December in the Year of Our Lord 1791.

* Note the "guaranteeing," not "granting."  The right is already there, as it is with almost all creatures.
-----------------------------

How about that, Mr. Marine?

Terry, 230RN
I do believe that the radical and crazy notion that the Founders meant what they said, is gradually soaking through the judicial system.

oldfart

Re: Marine rifleman thinks we shouldnt own ARs
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2016, 06:51:24 AM »
I was just telling my kid that self defense is a natural right for every living organism which includes people, animals , insects, plants, bacteria, etc.
They all have a form of self defense. Without it, life is not possible.
What, Me Worry?

passivekinetic

Re: Marine rifleman thinks we shouldnt own ARs
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2016, 10:30:06 AM »
I was just telling my kid that self defense is a natural right for every living organism which includes people, animals , insects, plants, bacteria, etc.
They all have a form of self defense. Without it, life is not possible.

The term "natural rights" has no meaning to liberals and communists, despite much of the liberal propaganda talking about "human rights."

I have been in numerous debates where liberals (far left) challenge the validity of "natural rights" and even "human rights".

Using religion is not a good argument on that (i.e., God given).
"The sheep fear sheepdogs, because they fail to see the wolves."
- Anonymous