What Does Gun Control Have To Do With Abortion: Nothing or Perhaps Everything

Opinion
A Nation In Crisis: Left-Wing Extremists Intend To Destroy The Very Fabric Of Our Constitutional Republic.

What Does Gun Control Have To Do With Abortion: Nothing or Perhaps Everything

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- Politicians should articulate sound and rational policy positions for the Nation, and those policy positions should be consistent with the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution, to preserve and strengthen it, not undermine it. Is that really so unreasonable?

Surely, politicians cannot and ought not expect the polity to endorse slipshod, simplistic policy prescriptions, especially those prescriptions that are inconsistent with, and antithetical to, the original meaning of the Constitution and which are inconsistent with, and which therefore negatively impinge on or infringe fundamental rights and liberties, as codified in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

Yet, time and time again we see many Democrats, especially those on the Radical Left of the political spectrum, articulating and supporting policy that, even on a cursory analysis, is inapt and inane, even insane.

From guns to abortion, to immigration, Democrats have gone off the rails.

Yet, many Americans seem to think that Democrats’ policy stances and prescriptions make perfectly good sense and that these policy positions and policy prescriptions bespeak, rather than, belie, the best interests of the Nation and its people. But do they? Do they really?

Take one example: guns. To listen to Democrats go on about the need for more and more gun restrictions, one might be led to think that the reasoning behind Democrats’ desire to impose more and more burdensome, even asinine, gun restrictions on law-abiding, responsible, rational Americans is predicated, as they will always remind you, on a desire to promote public safety. Left-wing extremist Democrats suggest they place a premium on human life and therefore hold the moral high ground, implying, then, that political and social Conservatives do not. But is that true? Are Democrats—especially extremists on the Left who yell loudest for restrictive gun measures—the paragons of virtue they claim to be? If you think so, then ask yourself this:

How can a politician claim to value human life by denying an individual the most effective means available to defend his or her life and that of innocent others, namely with a firearm, and, yet, encourage the whole-sale taking of life—the most innocent and helpless of human life, through late-term or at-birth abortion.

Can these two policy stances—civilian gun confiscation measures and late-term, at will, even at birth abortion stances be reconciled? Americans have a right to expect—in fact, should demand—an answer to this question before jumping on the Radical Left bandwagon. The mainstream media, though, demonstrates no interest in resolving this question. Indeed, the mainstream media doesn’t even bother to ask the question. But, this should come as no surprise to anyone since the mainstream media is no longer the guardian of a free Republic and defender of the Constitution, but, rather, walks in lockstep with extremists in Government—those who desire to undermine our Constitutional Republic, and disassemble our sacred rights and liberties. Rather than taking the would-be destroyers of our Nation to task, we see a seditious Press commending them for it, actively, avidly promoting the Radical Left agenda to the detriment of our Nation and of our people.

But, beyond the wild, fantastic idiocy of the Radical Left’s policy stances, as articulated to the polity—the Radical Left’s policy positions, especially those pertaining to guns and abortion—aren’t even coherent or consistent with each other.

Consider the nonsensical remarks of two representatives of the Radical Left:

U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), a contender for her Party’s nomination in the upcoming U.S. Presidential election in 2020, and Andrew Cuomo, third term Governor of New York. Both politicians espouse extreme views on firearms’ ownership and possession, on the one hand, and abortion, on the other. Each of them, at once, denies the right of the people to keep and bear arms as fundamental, natural, unalienable, and immutable, notwithstanding codification of that primordial right in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. And, at one and the same time, each argues for a woman’s right to late-term, at-will abortion [not to be confused with current accepted practices]; and each dares to raise abortion to the status of a fundamental right, even though nothing in the Constitution expressly or tacitly supports such a bizarre and outrageous notion.

We will look at the gun policy and abortion policy prescriptions of both Senator Harris and Governor Cuomo, in-depth. We will demonstrate that, while these Left-wing Radical Democrats treat abortion and guns as distinct, incommensurable issues, they really aren’t. Gun policy, if it is to pass Constitutional muster, must always be consistent with the language of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and the language of the Second Amendment is to be understood as a codification of the natural, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment, as with the other nine Amendments, is an affirmation of the value of human life, not its denial.

The Second Amendment does not entail, explicitly or implicitly, the idea of death, but of life: the life of the Nation by discouraging tyranny; and the life of the individual, by deterring threats to that innocent individual. Abortion entails, by definition, death: and death of the most innocent human being of all: an unborn child. There is no way around that conclusion. Any discussion of abortion as a policy choice and any talk of a restriction on the exercise of one’s fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, as a policy choice, must start with the same standard.

One must ask: does that policy choice promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; or does that policy choice operate to impede if not altogether preclude life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

The central theme of the Bill of Rights, perceived as an inseparable whole, speaks undeniably to the sanctity and inviolability of the individual. Senator Harris and Governor Cuomo attempt to undercut the Second Amendment by refusing to accept it for what it is: an unconditional, fundamental, unalienable, natural, and immutable right, a right bestowed on man by a loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Creator; and, as such, a right, as with the other Nine Amendments, that cannot be dismissed, modified, abrogated or ignored. In their refusal to accept the plain import and purport of the Bill Rights of the U.S. Constitution, Harris and Cuomo at once deny the sanctity and inviolability of the American citizen. Their denial, a casual and callous dismissal of the Second Amendment, operates, by implication, as a casual and callous denial of the Bill of Rights as an integrated whole.

Their denial amounts to blasphemy pure and simple.



Arbalest Quarrel

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

80
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
19 Comment threads
61 Thread replies
3 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
31 Comment authors
TionicogrifhunterRoyDtomcatTEEBONE Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
grifhunter
Member
grifhunter

The Arbelest Quarrel missed the all important connection between abortion and gun rights. The holding in Roe v. Wade found a right to privacy prohibiting the government from interfering with a woman’s right to control her body. That same holding would protect gun rights!

If a woman has an unfettered right to the means to protect her body from a 2 ounce fetus, doesn’t the same privacy right provide for a woman to unfettered access the the means to protect her body from a 200 pound rapist?

RoyD
Member
RoyD

That whole article can be summed up with this statement: Democrats curse the truth and worship the lie. Sounds a whole lot like Satan, doesn’t it?

RoyD
Member
RoyD

Well, I guess that’s that then.

Whormd
Member
Whormd

That should be a question at the next democratic debate, and a question for which they cannot prepare beforehand.

Oldvet
Member
Oldvet

Could it be that r c is T G he/she sounds like a woman’s point of view

Oldvet
Member
Oldvet

Maybe that’s where it was reformed

Circle8
Member
Circle8

My religion is my business but I will comment on guns. Legislation does not control gun violence. Violence is controlled by CULTURE. Does a gun, a vehicle, baseball bat or whatever on its own attack suddenly or attack someone without the actions of a human? Of course not but democrats say these items are self motivated and commit criminal acts by itself. You have to be pretty darn stupid to believe that. Now they want to hold the gun makers liable. Does that mean all car makers will be liable for accidents? Do all of the baseball bats in the… Read more »

RoyD
Member
RoyD

I give you an “A” for effort and a “C-” for execution.

buzzsaw
Member
buzzsaw

Not every adamant gun owner is Christian, or even religious. The atheist argument for the right to self-defense, and thus, the Second Amendment, could be even stronger than the religious ones. If we are indeed a random phenomenon in an indifferent universe and this life is IT-the only one each of us will EVER have, then this life is all the more precious, and all the more worth defending.

Ernie
Member
Ernie

There is no legal late term or after birth abortion. This article is a joke.

Idaho Bob
Member
Idaho Bob

@Ernie. At least arm yourself with honesty if you are going to defend the indefensible. There are at least 7 states where late term abortions can be performed plus the District of Columbia. So, you are either ignorant or a liar. As far as “after birth” murders (abortion) are concerned, there are no states that allow it yet, but as you are well aware there are a bunch of leftist politicians throwing this idea around as if it would be some monumental achievement.

Reformed Christian
Member
Reformed Christian

Why is it that men are the loudest when comes to the issue of abortion when they are totally, 100% of the cause of a woman seeking an abortion?

Idaho Bob
Member
Idaho Bob

@RC. That’s a biologically ignorant statement. Here is a more biologically correct point of view, It takes two to tango.
Thankfully, there are both men and women who care about the life of the unborn. Interesting that you use a moniker with “christian” since you are actually doing the work of the thief.
“The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly (John 10:10)”.

Reformed Christian
Member
Reformed Christian

I see you have the bible thumper end covered. Yes it does take two to tango but biologically only one of the two can get pregnant and here in the south the number of deadbeat dads is 4x greaer than in northern states. Funny that the states that call themselves the bible belt and beat the anti-abortion drum the loudest has the largest number of deadbeat dads. But then they teach abstinence over birth control.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

interesting that that bible you seem to scorn teaches that sex outside of a marriage of one man to one woman, for life. is the “cure” for ALL “unwanted” children, and thus abortion (it “happens” to also teach that taking the life of an innocent individual is puishable by the foreit of the life of the one doing the killing.
Your inconsistencies force me to the conclusion that your screen name is not consistent with who you are.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

the vast majority of men have never, and never will, be the “reason” a woman might seek to murder her unborn. And in ninety nine percent of those cases where she does NOT want to allow that life within her to live, SHE is co-equally resppnsib;e for that new life within her. So, if ya gonna pontificate, pontificate wiht truth. It is a factor closely approaching zero where the male is 100% responsible for that new life existing. Even in many cases of “real” rape, or “rape” rape, it is often the case where the woman put herself into a… Read more »

Grim
Member
Grim

The Arbalest Quarrel always dilutes/distracts the 2A discussion with religion.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

More accurately it supports that Second Article of Ammenment with eternal truth. Don’t forget there is much “religion” that is not consistent with that bible you don’t seem to respect or value overmuch.

TEEBONE
Member
TEEBONE

One needn’t perform gymnastics or contort words into pretzels to illustrate the Left’s disregard for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and individual liberty. One need only refer to Woodrow Wilson’s blatant declaration of the American progressive creed. Wilson is the godfather of American progressivism. According to his own words, the ‘preamble’ to the Declaration of Independence means nothing, and that document should be read without it. The so-called ‘preamble’ is the part that lays the foundation stones of American liberty: the equality of all men and their intrinsic, Creator-endowed rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Wilson… Read more »

Papa J
Member
Papa J

Part of the genius of the Founders of our Great Nation was, that they designed for us a system of government that really doesn’t work very well. That was a great idea on their part, as it makes it harder for the government to screw “We the People” with some of their more nefarious schemes.

Reformed Christian
Member
Reformed Christian

Then how did trump get elected. Talk about a nefarious scheme government.

TEEBONE
Member
TEEBONE

He got elected precisely per the inbuilt protection, and the nation has ducked a bullet for at least his first term.

Characterizing a system that protects the minority from majoritarianism as ‘nefarious’ is philistine and sophomoric.

Reformed Christian
Member
Reformed Christian

Yes I do own Guns. Guns and Aborton the hallmark of christian conservatitves. Why is one right ok and the other not both rights boil down to killing do they night. Oh god don’t allow abortions that is killing. But let us keep our guns so we can “defend ourselves.” Take off your rose colored glasses people, the sole purpose of a gun is to kill. With the logic of you christian conservatives it’s not ok to let a woman choose to have an abortion but its ok for you to kill someone with your gun under the pretense of… Read more »

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

It may have escaped your notice, but keeping is not killing. Keeping arms has been recognized as a right for thousands of years, and made it into the BOR. Abortion? Nope. That’s why.
You are not a reformed anything. You are a garden variety paid propagandist troll. You advocate for nothing and are against whatever your boss tells you to be against on any given day. How much do you make per response?

Reformed Christian
Member
Reformed Christian

Bill First off you missed with the last two lines of your response. I no longer havea boss unless you count my wife. I retired after 36 years from the USMC

Reformed Christian
Member
Reformed Christian

Second you were talking about the 2nd admendent which in the United States the “right to keep arms” is 57 years shy of being 300 years old. The right to have an aborton may not be as old as the 2nd but its still a right vis a constutional admendent. As far as the troll comment you seem to me a mindless Trump troll who is a definate follower rather than a leader. 3rd I am a reformed Christian in that living here in East Tennessee seeing the hypocritical ways of the “good christians” living here I have come to… Read more »

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

First, The Right to keep and bear arms predates the Constitution. It is a pre political civil Right. Didn’t you know?
Second, have all the abortions that you want.
Third, what was your mos in the USMC? What is DFAS?
Finally, you sought us out to contend with us. We did not go looking for you. You deserve all the derision that you get here.

tomcat
Member
tomcat

@ RC I am sorry to read that you live in E. Tennessee. You must be a recent transplant from a liberal state and you scoff at the conservative southern people. Believe me you are not the first and you won’t be the last. I question how long you will last especially if you continue your bad attitude. A retired Marine, huh, I find that hard to believe. Give us some information as W. Bill asked for. All I have heard from you on this is crickets.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

Two people walk into that abortion clinic every time. Only one walks out. The other is carried out in a bag, like the guts of a chicken that was just butchered to put into the stewpot or frying pan. Since two PEOPLE walk in, and only one comes out alive, ONE OF THEM has had their right to LIFE, as protected in the Constititon, taken from him without any due process. The difference you fail to grasp, above, is that when a gun is used to defend innocent life and the one who would end that life has theirs ended,… Read more »

Terry
Member
Terry

Deformed Christian;
Yes, abortions can be a wonderful thing. I wish your mother could have had at least one. And I, for one, would have absolutely have no problem with YOU turning in YOUR guns. Why don’t you go on back to the Huffington post where you so obviously belong.

Reformed Christian
Member
Reformed Christian

I would turn in my guns but I have no doubt I will need them to fight off the nut jobs in yor arena that are out to destroy America.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Terry, I know of no one that has ever been in combat that does not believe in God.

Gdubb
Member
Gdubb

“Reformed Christian”, Is you real name Kamala Harris? You sound just like her, only dumber. I do agree with you about one thing though – abortions and guns are both designed to kill. By the numbers: 100% of all abortions kill people, and less than 1% of all guns kill people. So they are not even close to the same thing. If you are so willing to give up your right to arm yourself, then follow your dear leaders and do so. Stop trying to take away my right to defend my family – neither you nor Beto have the… Read more »

Reformed Christian
Member
Reformed Christian

I am not Kamala Harris i am male. Your acts are off also if a fetus were considered a person it would not e called a fetus and both sides of the abortion issue call a fetus a fetus not a person. We also disagree about falling oo line and sinker,, have you actually read the book called the art of the deal? I assume your not from east Tennessee and can read past the third grade level. You God trump is nothing more than a con man who sold you mindless trumpers an art of the deal con job.… Read more »

Terry
Member
Terry

To paraphrase R. Lee Ermey;
You are a twinkle toed communist cocksucker!

Terry
Member
Terry

Sorry guys. I didn’t mean to stoop to the level of a crude vulgarian – but – I’m pretty sure I nailed it!

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Terry, Deformed Chrispy came here looking for a street level squabble. You did great.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

It claims to be male. I think that it is the one whose “acts are off”.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

cone ONNNN now, Deformed… if that “fetus” is not a person, what WILL it become? A cat? How aobut a possum? Maybe an elephant? Must a goneto wunna them thar gummit skewlz.. you don’t even know that at the moment one egg and one sperm are joined and form one new cell, that one cell has EVERYTHING the fully grown adult will ever have. It cannot be a cat, dog, elephant, it IS fully human. Read the account of Mary the mother of Jesus, when she went to visit her antique cousin Elizabeth, also with child in her advanced old… Read more »

Get Out
Member
Get Out

@RC, Umm, I don’t see “allow citizens to own firearm” written anywhere in the 2nd Amendment, I see it written as a right though, where did you get “allow” from?

“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.”

Second Amendment. noun. an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms as necessary to maintain a state militia.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

Not quite…. bear arms as necessery to the security of a free state (society). You forget that THE PEOPLE and MILITIA are synonymous. Militia is simply “the whole of the people, armed with their own weapons, and trained to be effective”. The intention was NEVER to maintain a “state” miltiia.. that is a much later invention. READ about the day of Lexington and Concord… British General Gage sent a party out to raid the PEOPLE at Lexington and Concord, specifically to disarm them. His detail of about 800 sodliers were met with FOURTEEN THOUSAND colonial milita, from every villag,e crossroads,… Read more »

Vanns40
Member
Vanns40

There is another facet of this which we keep overlooking. Gun control is not and never has been about controlling crime or criminals. It, ultimately, is about controlling people. It has always been the goal of Liberals to control the electorate by any means possible, whether it be dependence on government assistance or regulatory actions that require you to beg for permission. However, the one chink in any governmental plan to control the masses is armed resistance. You must disarm them before you can control them. Use the ruse of a safer society to achieve this, pander to the ignorant… Read more »

Vanns40
Member
Vanns40

Trump, although he proclaims to be pro-gun is not. He is a pragmatist. In actuality he’s been the most anti-gun President we’ve had in quite some time. Is he better than any of the Liberals running of President, yes, but that doesn’t make him pro-gun. If you’d really like me to elaborate on his anti-gun stand I will (again) but it’s been done before. Trump simply does whatever gets him what he wants at that particular time. It’s up to gun owners to tell him that he’d better not cross a line and so far we haven’t done a very… Read more »

UncleT
Member
UncleT

I love how the leftest argue owning a firearm violates their right to life because, just owning gun puts their life at risk. This their argument to disarm civilians but love the government, the largest mass murderers in history to be armed. This how you know their argument is baseless and about allowing govt to control their lives. But don’t you dare stop killing babies, that’s fundamental right. Not sure where, but that’s what they argue. It would seem killing them is already illegal unless they are violently attacking that gun owner. It does seem they are fan of protecting… Read more »

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@UT, Yes, God save us from their libtard logic that is full of presumptions, and jumped to conclusions.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

True enough. MY firearm wil NEVER violate their right to life. Howeve,r if THEY unilaterally decide to come against me to harm me or my people, they will have already made their own lives forfeit, byt THEIR unilateral decision, and if they press far enough they may end up losing that life they have already surrendered. If not by MY had, by the hand of the law. Thus as long as they respect MY right to life and liberty, their lives are safe with me. In fact, I’ll even defend any of them against unjustified harm from a third party.… Read more »

Mike L
Member
Mike L

There is a third aspect of this, that goes hand-in-hand (and which the Democrats are on the anti-human life side of) – euthanasia. It’s a pretty simple principle. Either people have a right to life or they don’t. If they do, then they have the right to be born, and also the right to defend their lives (legally and physically) against those who want them dead. If they don’t, then other people or the state can decide they shouldn’t live.

Reformed Christian
Member
Reformed Christian

I thought it was the duty and job of the police to defend us from those who want to harm. I do agree that people have a right to life or they don’t. But as the laws as they stand in America today, excluding abotion ones, do not recognize a fetus as a person until they are born.

Terry
Member
Terry

When seconds count the police are just minutes away. Speaking of away – why don’t you go there?

Vanns40
Member
Vanns40

No, it is not the duty of the police to protect the individual. In fact the courts have ruled exactly on that issue, Warren v District of Columbia, that the police have NO duty to protect the individual, only society as a whole. As an individual you’re on your own!

Get Out
Member
Get Out

@RC, Wow, where have you been, SUPREME COURT RULING: Police Have No Duty To Protect The General Public. The court has kept this stance for over 30 years. I’ve never met a Marine that would wait for the police to come protect them anyway, you’re the first.
Umm, could you clarify this statement “people have a right to life or they don’t”? It makes no sense either way.

Tionico
Member
Tionico

doesnt matter what “the law” presently says, if it does not hold the unborn to be living humans, they the law is wrong. Just like the “laws” in New York and California hold possession of certain types of long guns are “not allowed” is, per the words of ur Founders, null, void, and of no effect”. And some 96% of the people in New York who own the “banned” hardware in New York have refused to submit to the unjust and illegal terms of that “law” which our Founders declared to be “null, void, of no effect, and not law”.… Read more »

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Mike L, A certain Revolting Cretin thinks that it the polices’ job to defend people. He has jumped to another conclusion rather than doing his legal research.

Whatzit
Member
Whatzit

Law enforcement, i.e. cops, have one job – enforce law. If, in the process of enforcing law, they happen to save someone, that is nice, but certainly not necessary. Cops and firefighters are not caped hero do-gooders whose only purpose is to protect us. In fact, they have no duty to protect anyone particularly. A cop (probably miles away) is no substitute for a personal defense weapon.

loveaduck
Member
loveaduck

I believe abortion is appropriate in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. I don’t like it as birth control “oh ohs”.

Mike Crognale
Member
Mike Crognale

Nope, nope and sorry but nope. C Everett Koop, former Surgeon General of the US and practicing gynecologist stated flatly that there is never a reason to abort a normal pregnancy for the “health of the mother”. That said there is one time when it is appropriate and that is in an ectopic pregnancy. But note that this is not a normal pregnancy.. As for rape or incest if you believe that God endows each person with an immortal soul then it is a crime to kill the child regardless of the circumstances of his or her creation. There are… Read more »

Reformed Christian
Member
Reformed Christian

Tell me Mike if there are “millions of couples waiting to adopt” why are there so many children in foster care waiting to be adopted? Or doyou need to clearify your statement with “but only if they are babies” because god forbid if kids are not infants we “good christians” want nothing to do with them!

Tionico
Member
Tionico

one reason there are so many children in foster care is that county Child Protective Service agencies collet HUGE amounts of federal dollars to warehouse kids in homes not their own. I know of quite a few cases where such agencies have unjustlyb taken children from healthy and stable homes to feed them into the foster care racket so they can collect the bug FedBux.. and many foster care systems are corrupt and evil rackets run by unscrupulous people. As nearly everyhting gummit gets their grubby paws on, that system is corrupt, counter productive, and ofetn does more harm than… Read more »

Vanns40
Member
Vanns40

I disagree with you with regard to rape or incest. Is the unborn child evil or the villain? Yet you’re willing to murder it. Why is that?

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Vann, Excuse me for replying to your post, I did not want to create a response for a Revolting Cretin, who has obviously never tried to go through the process of adopting a child. Or it would know that bureaucrats intent on preventing child molesters from adopting have made the process so lengthy and difficult that many children are doomed to remain in foster care.

Vanns40
Member
Vanns40

Good reply all the way around

Jerry
Member
Jerry

A mass murderer is a very rare thing. What we are seeing are false flags to gain support for gun control, and later confiscation. If the Democrats get back into power, it would not be good for our country.

Will Flatt
Member

The mass murderers that USA is referring to are the abortion doctors. Over 60 MILLION babies have been aborted since 1973!! If that aint mass murder, I’ll eat my plate carrier!

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Jerry, and if the dnc gets back into power, they might refuse to give it up.

Oldvet
Member
Oldvet

@WB…That may well have been the plan if hiLAIRy were elected ! Therefore all the stink about impeaching Trump anyway anyhow at any cost . Sammy is an outstanding wingman.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

What fun! Don’t loose him!

Jerry
Member
Jerry

Any politician who is for disarming the law-abiding citizens of our country, are traitors to the Constitution and should be dealt with accordingly.

Deplorable Bill
Member
Deplorable Bill

In a state where the leadership makes legal the murder of unborn children, recently birthed children, that which has been an obamination before the LORD and most of the world for the past five thousand years, there will one day be a reckoning. When the leadership tries to remove the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness, the right of self defense, the right to keep and bare arms that were given to mankind from the LORD and further written into law as our constitution it is our civic duty to not comply. It is our right to… Read more »

Reformed Christian
Member
Reformed Christian

Just where in the bible does it mention the right to bare arrms? FIY The Second Amendment was added to the constitution in order to create a well regulated militia. Explanation: When the amendment was ratified in 1791 the United States did not have a well organized army aka milita to protect itself against invasion. The fastest and most seamless method of creating an “army” was to allow citizens to own firearms. Also at that point in time anyone could be drafted to defend the nation at any time for literally anything let a politican try, or even suggests to… Read more »

Oldvet
Member
Oldvet

@rc …(Does that stand for remote comtroled ?) Two quotes come to mind .
One where we are instructed to beat our plow shares into swords , the other if you do not own a sword sell thy cloak and buy one .

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

OV, Yes, Luke, chapter 22, verses 36 to 38. CR claims to be a reformed Christian, which means he claims to have been a Christian, but he can’t have been much of a Christian if he did not read the New Testament. He espouses a repudiated theory about the 2A, also. He must not have read any 2A case law either. He unravels.
And also yes, he is controlled remotely from the Soros or Bloomberg or Clinton organizations!

CaptainKerosene
Member
CaptainKerosene

Wrong on all points. The ARMY and NAVY existed but were a small elite corps. The States did have militias. The Constitution was written in 1788 and finally ratified in 1791. The Constitution was objected as written because it put ALL the arms in control of the Congress. Many people objected to the Constitution, including Patrick Henry who objected strenuously because the militia, patterned along the lines of the Minutemen would cease to exist. Not just the right to keep and bear arms but many other rights. Thus the Bill of Rights was drafted and ratified. If you read the… Read more »

Terry
Member
Terry

You know absolutely nothing of the 2nd amendment and the original intent of the founders of this country. Go have another glass of kool aid.

TexDad
Member
TexDad

Quit trying to sell that baloney. The right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms… We are, and have always been, the militia.

Terry
Member
Terry

You know even less about the Bible than the 2nd amendment.

Grim
Member
Grim

Summer is a great time to bare arms (and legs).

Get Out
Member
Get Out

@RC, Then he said to them, “But now, whoever has a money bag must take it, and likewise a pack. Whoever has none, must sell his cloak, and buy a sword. (That translates to AR15 today) Also, I don’t see “allow citizens to own firearm” written anywhere in the 2nd Amendment, I see it written as a right though, where did you get “allow” from? You also need to drop “allow” from your responses, we have the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear Arms. “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right… Read more »

Tionico
Member
Tionico

you’re all wat. READ your history. ALL of the colonies had local militias in each town and city. They were NOT under the control of the colonial government, or later the state government. The right to arms was to assure that THE PEOPLE could defend themselves from threats day to day, year in year out, with NO burden on any higher government entity. The day General Gage sent out his little Powder Raid to Lexington and Concord, his itty bitty little expeditionary force of 800 men was met with FOURTEEN THOUSAND armed, trained, equipoped, LOCAL militiamen, each with the ilttle… Read more »

Will
Member
Will

JOIN GOA ! The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington !

Finnky
Member
Finnky

The two views are consistent if you accepts the premise of another AmmoLand article. Nobody gives a $h-it about anybody else. 1) Gun Bans: For majority of US population the following four terms are synonymous: “Assault Rifle”, “Assault Weapon”, “AR” and “AR-15”. Having zero familiarity with the topic at hand, is it any wonder they listen to the steady drumbeat of media and politicians telling them that these are “military weapons” and have no use other than to kill people and that no one owns one unless they dream of killing humans? They see dramatic coverage of any public mass… Read more »