1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

some good news???

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by JohnnyK, Jan 10, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JohnnyK

    JohnnyK Member

    Oct 17, 2011
    Protected" Guns?

    The small UT town of Spring City is currently discussing a resolution that
    all households must have at least one unspecified "gun" therein and, at
    some point, residents thereof must participate in some kind of gun

    The whole thing is mostly symbolic, of course, and other municipalities
    that have passed similar resolutions in the past made sure anyone who
    doesn't want to participate doesn't have to.

    However, in a larger sense, it is acknowledgment of the implication of the
    Second Amendment that all able-bodied Americans are involuntary members of
    a "Militia," whether they know it or not, and are thus subject to
    involuntary call-up, when necessary, for the defense of the nation. And,
    that they are expected to individually show-up for duty when so called, "bearing
    arms," presumptively their own, as neither individual state governments,
    nor the federal government, will be able, nor obligated, nor likely, to arm
    individual militia members. And, arms they "bear" must be able to
    complete, on equal footing, with those currently in use by evil forces, foreign or
    domestic, they're obligated to oppose.

    Thus, current, common military weapons, designed and intended to be
    operated by a single individual, particularly rifles in existing military
    service, are the ones the Second Amendment is most intended to protect, and
    of which to insure individual (at least voluntary) possession by all American
    adults. Modern, military rifles trace their ancestry directly back to the
    American Revolution.

    In the Miller Case, argued before the US Supreme Court in 1939, the
    government contended that a particular kind of shortened shotgun was not a
    "common military individual weapon," and thus not protected by the Second
    Amendment. The clear implication is that all individual weapons (guns)
    that are currently in, or have ever been in, common military service-- handguns,
    shotguns, and particularly rifles, are indeed protected by the Second

    As a non-lawyer, my conclusion is that modern, military rifles are the most
    protected of all guns protected by the Second Amendment. What leftist
    politicians and their media lackeys call, with an arrogant sneer, "weapons
    of war."

    Well, of course they're weapons of war! So is the Benelli M4 shotgun, the
    Beretta 92F pistol, various S&W revolvers, M1 Carbines, M1 Garands,
    Kalashnikovs, FALs, and a host of others. They're all in current, or
    previous, common military usage and thus are protected.

    In my opinion, we real Americans need to stop apologizing to leftist
    Constitutional criminals, who think there is, and should be, no limit to
    their power, and that individual rights of Americans are really "privileges,"
    arbitrarily granted, and withdrawn, at their whim!

    Our individual rights and liberties, most especially the right to
    individually, unilaterally possess military guns, were conferred upon us by
    our Creator, and He apparently didn't think He needed the concurrence/approval
    of any earthly potentate. Thus, no apology is necessary, nor appropriate!
  2. -v-

    -v- Member

    Oct 22, 2007
    Don't forget Mausers, 1903 springfields, Mosin-Nagants, and Remington 700 rifles as well. Either way, we all know their goal isn't guns, its control. For them guns are a big hinderence to them exerting full control
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page