Gun Quotes
Here are my favorite gun quotes. This quote sums up the key problem with gun-controllers arguments: they're unintentional hypocrites or fools. You can’t eliminate a tool, or knowledge of it. All that you can do is decide whether there should be a balance of power, or none. Some believe in that balance, others believe that the state is never wrong, especially if you ignore the History of all the times they’ve been wrong in the past.
❝ "If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people.
Since you'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns, you're very Pro-Gun. You just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral, and virtuous...) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions.' ❞ |
Stefan Molyneux
|
Liberty
Founding Fathers |
---|
|
Legal |
---|
|
Militia Meaning |
---|
Words change meaning over time. The militia means what it meant at the founding, not what the word evolved to mean today. At the time of the writing, the definition of militia was, "The whole body of civilians, that are NOT part of the regular army”. Since the Guard/Reserves are part of the regular army (or reserves), they are the unorganized militia (which was everyone else). Basically, anyone old enough to defend their home, town or country (that was not in the army already) was the militia. But even today, the meaning hasn’t changed as much as some think. Some people mistakenly think it means reserves or National Guard (established 1903, and subject to federal control) — but since those didn’t exist at the time of authoring, there is no way it could have been the type of body envisioned by the framers. Today’s legal definition is, the "militia" consists of "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age”, with a few exclusions for medical, mental or job deferments (by their choice) (10 U.S.C. 311 and 32 U.S.C. 313). You don’t have to take my word for it, there are multiple Constitutional rulings and the words of the authors listed below more... |
Militia Dependent |
---|
the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed. ❞ But they’re failing at English and what many English scholars have said about that argument. The "well regulated militia" phrase is an "nominative absolute” phrase which can be ignored. It is merely explanatory (descriptive) and dependent on the rest of the sentence (not the rest of the sentence is a dependent clause on it). Since you ignore nominative/descriptive clauses, the 2nd can be read, "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” No one would read THAT as you have to be a well-schooled electorate in order to keep and read books. The right to keep and read books must not be infringed, so we can all participate in a well schooled electorate. "Shall not be infringed" is not the type of wording one puts in, when something is conditionally dependent on something else. more... |
Individual Right |
---|
A recent distraction is, "before the NRA got to it, the 2nd Amendment wasn’t an individual right". That somehow this a right of the people (plural: meaning the collective), and thus not of individuals, thus the people can regulate it away. (The milia is "us", so "we" can say that "you’re" not the militia as an individual, and thus you don’t need your gun). However, six relevant Supreme Court decisions have recognized that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to keep and bear arms, not a collective one. There aren't really collective rights enumerated in the Constitution. The problem is pesky history: the reason the bill of rights was created is because in the ratification of the Constitution there was fighting over the wording of the enumerated rights of individuals. So they agreed to ratify the constitution AND get the bill of rights to enumerate what the individual rights were. So the whole reason why the Bill of Rights (including the 2nd) was written was to protect the individuals rights from the government. The Framers understood the concept of a "right" to apply ONLY to individuals. more... |
Well Regulated | |
---|---|
Well regulated, at the time (and for 100 years afterward) just meant "something being in proper working order”, well calibrated or functioning as expected. But even if we pretend that it did mean “government regulated” (which it doesn't), it would still be irrelevant, because it was part of a nominative/descriptive clauses, and thus whether the people should be able to keep and bear arms so they can choose to be part of a militia or not, doesn’t change that their right to do so, "shall not be infringed".
|
Famous People |
---|
|
Opponents |
---|
This first one sums up the anti-gun position perfectly. (It went on to say that "Fear is what motivates most gun extremists, and it's misdirected"). It was a false-dichotomy fallacy, that misrepresents the argument, by a SciFi author with no knowledge of guns or gun control. But I do agree that fear of guns is the problem. It's those that fear their neighbors having a gun for sport or self defense, that are the intolerant extremists that cause friction in society by trying to take other people's liberty and property away.
Here's many others with a like-minded view:
|
Obama Gun Quotes |
---|
Q: Why was Obama the best gun salesman in History? A: Because people thought he wanted to restrict their gun rights. Q: Why did people think Obama wanted to restrict their guns? The left likes to pretend the informed are nuts to think Obama is anti-Gun, he just wants reasonable controls. The facts tell a different story. more... |
Hillary Clinton: 2nd Amendment |
---|
While Hillary tries to play the moderate to those that don't know better, if you have any understanding of her background, you'd know she'd be on the least constitutional, and certainly least pro-2nd Amendment Presidents we've ever had. For me, that's reason enough to never have voted for her. But the denials of those on the left come in two flavors: ignorance or polemics (trying to spin). If you know what you're talking about, there's no doubt of where she stands, only doubt on how successful she'd be at her agenda. |