memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/watch-cops-warn-youre-on-your-own/

This one should be obvious...

tayjcar

"You have a duty to protect yourself and family....Help us help you" I like that.

MasterAdrian Loc: Amsterdam, NL

I think it is strange... they tell you that you have a DUTY to protect yourself and the yours, but fail to tell you that you are a suspect when you defend yourself and the yours against a robbery or a gun in the hand of an attacker!

In my opinion the police is the only one that should be allowed to use force and arms when needed, and that the police has the DUTY to protect the citizens, and not harass or attack them (as is often the case!)

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

You show you are grossly ignorant in that belief. The police themselves admit that they cannot help you if a crime is occurring...unless they happen to be right there as it is happening. In fact, the average response time varies from 30 to 60 minutes depending on circumstances and distance.

So, what do you do when it is your very government who is the enemy who is taking away your rights? Our founding fathers gave us the 2nd Amendment for the greatest protection of all. To fight against a tyrannical government. They believed it was the duty of the PEOPLE to take care of themselves. The only protection our government was to give was protection from other governments, hence a military. They gave us a limited form of government because they believed that the people should govern themselves. The government's role was only to step in when they failed to do so.

MasterAdrian Loc: Amsterdam, NL

Ah! Now I see were YOU are coming from......
"Government taking away rights from the citizens" and that sort of blahblah

The Constitution was written to protect sensible rights, and not to use the articles for idiotic viewpoints and ridiculous opinions!

Give me one example of the government (administration) taking away your rights!
(and no, don't come on the table with the weapon-talk, as the administration is NOT taking away to right to bear arms, the administration is calling for a stricter regulation of registration and check-ups on backgrounds! Which in my opinion is not taking away rights but increasing the protection, as with a check on someone's mental history and state of mind it can be prevented that such a person is flipping and starting a massacre!!)

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

You'll think that until they take away your rights, and the men with guns come to your door.

Man how arrogant you are! "Idiotic viewpoints", "ridiculous opinions" by whose standards? Yours? I think not. In your other post, you were concerned that you might be revealed for a fool. This post certainly comes close. You are not qualified to consider the quality of another person's viewpoint or opinion. I say this because your very statement alone means you think that anyone who's opinion or viewpoint that doesn't agree with yours is idiotic or ridiculous. That alone is grounds for making your viewpoint idiotic, and your opinion ridiculous.

"Sensible Rights"? By whose accounting? Yours? I think not! I challenge you to even define sensible rights, or to state what qualifications a right has for being sensible. You can't, that much I guarantee.



You cannot ask for an example, and then deliberately claim that one specific one cannot be claimed. That is a common liberal tactic. "Give me proof!...but you can't use this or this or this!" Typical. As for the right to bear arms, I already handled this one in another post elsewhere.

However, for the sake of this argument, let's start with the definition of Arms used during the day of our founding fathers to see how they understood it.

Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language
Arms. n.s. without the singular number. [arma, Lat.]
1. Weapons of offence, or armour of defence.
2. A state of hostility.
3. War in general.
4. Action; the act of taking arms.
5. The ensigns amorial of a family.

It is interesting to note that their idea of arms is as an offensive weapon, and also includes defensive armors. That means that the right to bear arms in the sense that they knew it was to gear up for war. Consequently, they would have included cannons, mortars and rockets (which were all known weapons of that day) in their definition of arms.

It is also interesting to note that our forefathers made no distinction of weapons in the Bill of Rights. The could easily have said "The right to bear arms of a personally carry-able nature." thus precluding the purchase of cannons and other "military" class weapons. The fact is that they considered al weapons to be military in nature. Their decision to not exclude weapons in the wording of the 2nd Amendment is deliberate. And that they also placed language saying that right "shall not be infringed" is also telling.

So, what part of "Shall not be infringed" do you fail to understand? The definition?

in·fringe [in-frinj]
verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress
verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.
Origin:
1525–35; < Latin infringere to break, weaken, equivalent to in- in-2 + -fringere, combining form of frangere to break

Hmmm... so it means don't break or weaken the right to bear arms. It would appear to me then that any law restricting the purchase of any type of weapon, its magazine size, or even the type of ammunition would fit the definition of infringe. I suspect our founding fathers would agree. Especially since we have their writings on the subject, and the fact that they saw our very government as the likely enemy of the people.

As for other violations, there are so many, it's hard to know where to start! I think I'll let some of the others have a hand in so I will only bring out one of the obvious ones. Both freedom of speech and free exercise of religion is being attacked. As a christian, you are not allowed to speak out against hot-button topics like homosexuality. Anything you say is labeled hate speech. I can go much further into this, but I'm more interested in what others have to say.

MasterAdrian Loc: Amsterdam, NL

Well, you see I can ask for an example with excluding the obvious.......
But as you have refused clearly to give an example of the administration taking away, or at least failed in doing so, I accept your defeat in this.

And btw, registration of or on weapons, and or a stricter registration of and on weapons, as well as better checking backgrounds of weapon permit requestors, is not limiting the right to bear arms, it is obviously the forfilling the duty of and by the administration to protect innocent citizens from abuse by idiots and backward religious terrorists......

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

This is where you once again read what you want into a statement. You are disingenuous. I never said anything about gun registration. I only spoke out against restriction of sales. And I did give an example, you refuse to see it...no I'm not talking about guns either.