POLL: 65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny

Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny. Only 17% disagree, while another 18% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...gainst_tyranny Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Yea and the Bush admin convinced the majority of Amercians that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. What's your point Whirly? That this country is ignorant as fuc? If so , I agree.

Look, I think abortion doctors should be armed and should be able to legally shoot any asshole that comes and harasses his patients. I don't half ass my rights like some. Some of you only stick up for rights if they effect you. Kinda like when gays wanted to get married, many of you gun nuts think that should be illegal....so yea I can see where 65% in this country are hypocrites.

The New Yorker was in print in 1012? That was even before the Normans invaded England. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The Indians on Manhattan Island starting printing The New Yorker well before 1012. Just not on paper.

You are so uninformed its pathetic. Thomas Jefferson (who just happens to be one of our founding fathers in case your ignorant ass didn't know that either) himself said, and I quote

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

Dude, Thomas Jefferson never said that. It's a made up quote attributed to him. In fact, a lot of the quotes attributed to Jefferson are false. Here's a link to one of the many sites that confirm that this is a bogus quote. http://saf.org/pub/rkba/general/BogusFounderQuotes.htm Here's what the article says about the quote and it's supposed source:

"Occasionally this phony quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson is given with the following citation: Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950). The publication exists, but the quote does not. And the editor's correct name is Julian P. Boyd, not C.J. Boyd. In other cases, this quote is added to the end of a proven Jefferson quote "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms…" Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344."

Read something real every now and then and quit allowing yourself to be spoon fed bullshit and made a fool of.

I think you should follow your own advice and do some independent reading from original sources and not be spoon fed extremists bile and bullshit.

But I did read original source material, the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and it confirms everything that i wrote and more. Here's a link to the case from the Cornell University law school's website and you can read the case for yourself.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

The case is a bit dense and you may have to read it a few times to follow it (I had to) but when you do you will see that the Supreme Court of the Unites States, not awl4knot or any other source, made these points, which generally rebuff the idea that individual citizens can bear arms for the purpose of opposing the government, even if they find it "tyrannical".

Justice Scalia's opinion is largely comprised of an attempt to justify an interpretation of an individual right that follows a clause that protects an institution, the militia.The Second Amendment provides: “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 other words, his task was to explain how you get from a well-regulated militia to the right to possess a handgun for personal protection. Those concept are widely and wildly different, but you can't offer a plausible interpretation of the Second Amendment unless both clauses are put into some sort of harmony.

But here's the core of the opinion:

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” (Slip op. at 19)

Scalia later wrote:

“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.” (Slip op. at 22)

Justice Scalia then went on to explain that the militia was viewed as that body of able bodied (white) men organized in to companies, regiments and brigades required to attend military training on certain days but who were generally free to pursue their own occupations. He then wrote, and this is the part that the insurrectionist won't like:

From that pool (of able bodied men) Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force.” (Slip op. at 23)

Clearly, only Congress, and state governments, have the power to organize the militia and any extra government armed group would be seen as illegal and traitorous. So, boys, don't be organizing your self for the revolution because the FBI may be infiltrtating your war games and group discussions looking for criminal activity.

Scalia then tries to blend the preservation of the of the militia with the individual "rights" aspect of the amendment:

“It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.” (Slip op at 26).

But the Heller case was about the right to possess weapons for self-defense and it specifically pointed out that the right to bear arms can certainly be limited.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposingconditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

But here's the big limitation for those of you who think that the Second Amendment protects the right to have machine guns, pistols, assault weapons, silencers, or other forms of armaments that go beyond those needed for hunting or self-defense.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” ...It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the SecondAmendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” (Slip op. at 55-56).

That really flies against those of you who think that your personal arsenals can't be limited by the government. All Heller says is that small arms traditionally used for self-defense can't be completely barred or so closely regulated that it makes possessio of them impossible.

Now, in a fit of apparently uncontrolled pique and anger, you made this comment.

So SHUT YOUR LYING WHORE MOUTH about what they meant when they wrote the second ammendment. Read what THEY said then and NOT what PEOPLE WITH AGENDAS now say that they meant.

I just gave you what the Supreme Court said about the Second Amendment. So the PEOPLE WITH AGENDAS are the five justices who formed the majority in Heller and no one else. If you don't like their agenda, take it up with them and not with me.

Now, to the issue of shutting my "LYING WHORE MOUTH" I am going to remind you of what you said in another post;

"IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH OUR BIBLES OR OUR GUNS THAN GROW A SET OF BALLS AND COME AND TRY AND TAKE EITHER ONE OF THEM!!!

But none of you will, because you are fucking pussys!"

Here's the link to the thread:
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...post1052231394

Now I'm gonna turn your quote on you.

"If you have a problem with my free speech right, then grow a set of balls and come and try to take it away from me. But you won't, because you area fucking pussy."

Just as you threw down the gauntlet, I'm throwing it down on you. Are you gonna pick it up and "Shut My Lying Whore Mouth"? Of course hot, because you are just an unthinking, unreasonable blow hard coward who blusters on the internet knowing that you are completely insulated from consequences.

If you don't like what I write, but me on ignore, but don't call me a liar or a whore or claim that I don't do my homework. And just where can we find that Jefferson quote?
. Originally Posted by threepeckeredbillygoat

P.S. I apologize for the formatting, This was a bitch to cut and paste together.














I

Actually, the actual post is miswritten into pro-gun spin. Per usual with Whirlyturd.

Polls do not measure what people RECOGNIZE. They measure what people BELIEVE.

The spin, as usual, is in the headline.

It blossoms out from there into a new school of thought. One based on the paranoid delusions of those who think they can read what's in the Constitution and interpret it to their satisfaction. Awl4knot accurately quoted the 2nd Amendment (or Ammendmment, for some of you dipshits out there who disregard the little red squiggly lines on the screen). But so many of you folks have joined the militia that I just don't know any more.

LAST TIME I LOOKED, stateside militia were simply anarchists and domestic terrorists. You OKIES ought to be familiar with that. Probably ran up on some of those patriots at the (forbidden topic) lab.

Dishonesty. The hallmark of the GUNSUCKERS on this board. And you know, if we take guns out of the discussion, they're just SUCKERS! Maybe even COCKSUCKERS!

Automatic weapons are not made for self defense (unless up you're in Fallujah) or hinting. They're made for shredding human bodies.

Get real or STFU!

you gun suckers still don't get it!

you should quit while you're still armed enough to blow up a school...

Yeah, I said the. Based on your posts, I'd say at least 47% of you fuckers are Ticking time bombs! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The point I was making is that these so called assault weapons they want to ban are NOT automatic weapons. Current law makes it very difficult to get a permit to own an automatic weapon today.

You need to learn how to read, obtain some basic manners, and pull your own head out of your ass before you start acting so superior.

hey Laz, manners went up the window within a week of my arrival here. I TRIED. God (of your choice) knows I tried.

Please teach me to read, man! PLEEEEZE!

And if you have an inferiority crisis based on my posts then yo need to take a deep breath and GO FUCK YOURSELF!

That said, I want everybody to realize that three out of four America are 75%!

hey Laz, manners went up the window within a week of my arrival here. I TRIED. God (of your choice) knows I tried. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

While I realize that there are many here that enjoy the name calling game you had a choice to not participate. That was your decision so don't blame anyone else.

As for the main point here you still have not made any comment indicating you understand that what the political hacks are referring to as assault weapons are not the same as the weapons used in the military. Functionally they are the same as numerous hunting rifles that will continue to be available.

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

-- Noah Webster

Kinda looks like Noah Webster thought the right to bear arms was so the people could protect themselves from government. But what the hell does he know?

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

-- Noah Webster

Kinda looks like Noah Webster thought the right to bear arms was so the people could protect themselves from government. But what the hell does he know? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Ummmmm, not sure if ole Noah was aware of F-16 , if our military was ever willing to fire upon it's citizens, they would not stand a chance.

I am not for gun control , just like I'm not for the government telling women they can not have abortions but you gun nuts are lying about using your guns aganist the government. You would not stand a chance in a armed battle and if you do not know that simple fact, then maybe you shouldn't have a gun. .

The fact is, Obama has already fired upon citizens, and killed them. No, we don't have access to weapons to protect ourselves from our tyrannical government. However, I was addressing the concept. That is what the Founders meant. If you want to change it, amend the Constitution. It's not as though the Constitution hasn't been screwed up by amendments before.

There was no such thing as telephones, television or radio, let alone the internet in 1791. Does that make the first amendment antiquated and out of date as well then? I'm sure the Founders certainly couldn't have imagined todays modern communications when their US mail service consisted of a courier riding a horse to deliver a message.

As for the main point here you still have not made any comment indicating you understand that what the political hacks are referring to as assault weapons are not the same as the weapons used in the military. Functionally they are the same as numerous hunting rifles that will continue to be available. Originally Posted by Laz

Then nobody will miss them! (-and judge not, lest ye be judged, pal!)

Which citizens has Obama killed Unaliar? Please provide corroboration for your "fact." More lies from the king.

CC, the Ten Commandments are outdated too. But I'm sure the dudes who wrote them had a reason to codify morality back then, too.

I don't lie, Assup. You know that, since you have scoured my posts to find one, and failed.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...erican/264028/

Also, weren't you the one who recently castigated me for not obeying the Ten Commandments? Now they're outdated. It seems to me, Assup, you are the pathological liar here. You even said you tried to start here by not calling names. That was a lie, too.

I don't have to even work to find your lies. Yet do I constantly repeat that you are a liar? No. In fact, I have shown you great respect and honor, by reminding everyone here that you are a celebrity, and have earned and richly deserved the honor recently bestowed upon you. You are, in fact,

DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR 2013

ASSUP!!!

That story is so fucking crazy, but then again so are you. The Al-Qaeda leader was gonna get got. But I suppose that isn't OK with you, bunker boy!

Are you supporting terrorists now? Sure seems like you are.

One never knows with you.

I'm supporting the Constitution, Assup. It's un-American asswipes like you who want to discard it when it interferes with Democrat policy. Besides, you asked when had Obama killed American citizens. I showed you one. So you were lying, and I was not. Lucky for you, you can fall back on your . . .

DIPSHIT OF THE YEAR 2013

ASSUP!!!