Avatar_feed
Responses: 19
SSG Paul Headlee
25
25
0
Its not about guns in and of themselves. Its about freedom. No guns = no freedom and that's just a matter of time. History is replete with examples. Its hard to dissent with nothing but your mouth. Yes its been done but its not the most effective way. We don't want to hurt anybody; just don't wish to become slaves. Pretty simple, huh?
(25)
Comment
(0)
SSG Paul Headlee
SSG Paul Headlee
1 mo
Sgt James S. You've got to make it so costly to your enemies that they go pick on someone else; in this, the enemies of freedom.
(12)
Reply
(0)
SSG Samuel Kermon
SSG Samuel Kermon
1 mo
Seems simple enough to me.
(9)
Reply
(0)
SMSgt David A Asbury
SMSgt David A Asbury
1 mo
Take away the guns, the police and then they can control you and take away all your freedom.
(8)
Reply
(0)
SSG Paul Headlee
SSG Paul Headlee
1 mo
SMSgt David A Asbury That's how I'd do it. Why be a pioneer?
(4)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
CSM Chuck Stafford
24
24
0
...shall not be infringed...
(24)
Comment
(0)
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen
1 mo
If something is a law you aren't infringing by taking it away. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe
(1)
Reply
(0)
Sgt James S.
Sgt James S.
1 mo
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - Even if your interpretation of the definition were correct (which it isn't), since the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it prohibits any lesser laws from taking away that right.
(4)
Reply
(0)
CW3 Harvey Keck
CW3 Harvey Keck
1 mo
Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen - Note that "encroachment", or "gradualism" (the slowly boiled frog?) is used in the definition of "infringe". Note also "infringement" is related to the word "fringe", or "on the fringe", or the "edges" rather than the center. So "infringement " connotes a gradual "nibbling away at the edges" of the RKBA.
How prescient of the Founders to have anticipated the strategy the gun-grabbers would employ to disarm the people, and specifically forbidden it.

P S Of course that "encroachment" on 2nd Amendment rights "violates ... the rights of another", thereby being an "infringement", even if there is an unconstitutional law that permits that encroachment.
(4)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
LTC Greg Henning
18
18
0
Its called rule of law! Lt Col Charlie Brown
(18)
Comment
(0)
SSG Robert Ricci
SSG Robert Ricci
1 mo
The rule of law is the Second amendment. The Democrats want to change that even though it is an inalienable right.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In Heller v Washington DC the now-deceased Antonin Scalia differentiated between the militia and a private citizen indicating that there is now a separation and that private citizens have a right to arm themselves pursuant to law. We need to remember the supremacy clause. You may add to a federal law but you may not take away from it. But what you add may not be so onuris and unyielding as to change the essential meaning of the law. That is why California lost in the Supreme Court regarding magazine size. Next to fall will be the regulation that requires California residents to get a government-issued ID such as a driver's license in order to buy ammunition. That has the effect of tracking who has guns. That means they know exactly whose daughter boot in first. Additionally, some ammunition requires Federal use only which then requires additional documentation to purchase.

I'm not sure what side you're coming down on so I don't know whether to agree or disagree with you that it's called the rule of law.
(5)
Reply
(0)
SPC Les Darbison
SPC Les Darbison
1 mo
I looked at your profile you have a lot to be proud of Sir. And your Common sense is evident. Thanks you for your service Sir.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close