The Second Amendment is useless - Page 3

The Second Amendment is useless

This is a discussion on The Second Amendment is useless within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by SelfDefense .....The mix of statists, liberals and libertarians, who want the Federal government to control every aspect of their lives ....... I've ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 51
  1. #31
    Senior Member Array highvoltage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    .....The mix of statists, liberals and libertarians, who want the Federal government to control every aspect of their lives .......
    I've never heard of a libertarian who wanted a federal government to have that much power. Quite the opposite, they are for the least government possible while preserving as much personal and economic freedom as possible.


  2. #32
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I hate when that happens...



    I'm sure you are aware that the Ninth is the most overturned court.
    Yes, but even the most overturned court gets it right sometimes.

    I cursory reading of the historical context in which the 2nd amendment was written provides the historical support for the reasoning given by the 9th circuit.

    "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution."

    Lawful based on what, the inalienable rights referenced in the Declaration of Independence or lawful based on the twisting of those fundamental principles which is so much the case in our current system of justice?

    "Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

    Correct. And in the same way what constitutes treason isn't dependent on that instrument (the Constitution).

    The Constitution was written to protect certain principles, chiefly the inalienable rights of the people.

    "The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."

    Wrong. It shall not be infringed even by the States or any other government based on the fundamental guiding principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence.

    "This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States."

    Again, you can argue with Nordyke v King but just as other fundamental rights have been incorporated the 2nd amendment, if it is viewed as a fundamental right, enjoys the protection afforded by the 14th amendment.

    Prior to the Revolutionary War the British attempted to disarm the population to prevent an armed revolt. Actions were taken on the part of revolutionaries to protect and secure those arms. To deny that a preservation of that right by the people as a protection against the rise of an oppressive federal government is to ignor the context in which the amendment was written and required to properly interpret its meaning.

    "Many people fear tyranny in our government but it is simply not possible. We have elections every two years."

    That depends who is defining tyranny.

    African-Americans suffered a form of tyranny in the U.S. Germany had one of the most educated populations in the 1930's and I'd argue that the Jews living in Germany, many that intially believed it couldn't happen, found Hilter's rule tyrannical.

    Fifty years ago the U.S. was the greatest lender nation on the planet. We enjoyed a technological lead no one could touch. We had an educational system that was the envy of the world. We were that land of opportunity that was admired by the rest of the world.

    Today we are the greater debtor nation on the planet. We have lost our technological edge to India, China and Israel. Our educational system ranks about 15th in the world. We are no longer the land of opportunity.

    Never say never.

    "I am unconcerned with Article 3 Section 3 in this context. The pertinent clause is found in Article 1, Section 8, which provides the power to Congress to supress insurrections."

    As mentioned above regarding the 2nd amendment, you cannot properly understand Article 3, Section 3 or the original intent (if you're concerned with such things) without understanding the context in which it was written.

    "I was referring to the Federal government. The people of the states can do as they please though most protect the right to keep and bear arms in their constitutions."

    I don't believe that is accurate.

    The people of the states or the State are bound by the 14th amendment AND maybe more importantly the power the federal government exercises via the commerce clause to tow the federal government line.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    "I am unconcerned with Article 3 Section 3 in this context. The pertinent clause is found in Article 1, Section 8, which provides the power to Congress to supress insurrections."

    Whether it is treason or insurrection understanding the intent and meaning must be within the historical context in which these articles were written.

    An insurrection against a government that is trampling on the fundamental rights of its citizens is an insurrection in name only if that insurrection is believe to be the only means to restore those fundamental rights.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Array 2edgesword's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    653
    BTW, Heller also mentions the amendment, regarding historical context, as being a deterent to the rise of a tyrannical government.

  5. #35
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,798
    Self Defense : I don't think you've read anyting related to 'England and the 200 years prior to the Revolution, if you say you do not understand what that has to do with the USA or the Constitution.

    Sorry bud, but one of my great..... grandfather's was in the Continental Congress and voting on the Constitution.... I'll go by what he wrote & several others for 100 + years prior to that, and what they said.... over your opinion of what you think they thought.

  6. #36
    Member Array mojave_pistolero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    152
    Wow what an educational expierience this is! I love our Country. Thank you one and all for contributing your insights. Once again I realize the more I read the Forum the more I need to read and learn elsewhere. Thanks again to all.
    There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
    - General George Patton Jr

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  7. #37
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,980
    Quote Originally Posted by TerriLi View Post
    Lets see when it comes to 2A, I understand it simply. It states "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." After fighting a 2 year long war where the government militias had tried to disarm the public I would make dang certain that the people not a tyrannical government militia had arms. That's one thing that people gloss over, the British forces were often Americans that were loyal to the crown.
    Second of all is the fact the purpose clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," Is separated. Considering the fact that militias were the main force of all military might of the day, and that large standing armies were often the tool of oppressive governments. I think our founders wanted a militia based national defense, with a very small standing army.
    Also the use of the word State, instead of country, or other such wording of a large nation shows an early aversion to a completely federal system, but more of a nation of individual States. All of which are separate, but united in certain limited ways. Thus to avoid a overly centralized government that could more easily be taken over and turn tyrannical.
    I think one of the keys is the wording itself. Notice the use of the word "free" as in "the security of a free State". Unless we are to believe that the author and the politicians back then didn't think much about what they were writing, they must have had a reason to put that there. The constitution allows for the creation of a national army, which would protect the United States as a whole. So why would a "well regulated militia" be "necessary to the security of a free state"?
    And lets not forget that our fearless leaders at that time were traitors.
    They had been involved in an armed insurrection against their lawful government and sovereign. If the rebellion had failed they would have hanged, and possible drawn and quartered and all that other good stuff. So I would think it entirely in keeping with their philosophy and values to provide the population with the means to overthrow their government by force of arms if/when it was believed to be necessary.

    The consititution is definitely a flawed document, but it sure beats the alternative. I think what would really improve it is an amendment that spells out the necessary steps for a state to secede. Without the option of secession, states aren't really "free" or "sovereign". They are just semi autonomous slaves to the federal government.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  8. #38
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,925
    As I pointed out earlier, words on a sheet of paper didnt prevent the first succession of states.Whether it is actually legal or not matters little.

    Men of action will do what they need to do regardless of what anyone says or thinks...and it will be the same the next time around.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  9. #39
    VIP Member
    Array shooterX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,848
    Wow what an educational expierience this is! I love our Country. Thank you one and all for contributing your insights.
    +1 I agree, I have learned so much since joining this forum. It also goes to show that the citizens of this country that have choosen to carry aren't the ignorant redneck's the liberal media likes to portray us as, that we are actually very well educate and productive members of society, and I tip my hat (so to speak) to each and every one of you!

  10. #40
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,980
    But Hotguns there have previously been made arguments that the Constitution does not allow secession, and that once a state always a state. If we can get all of these states that are sending sovereignty notices and resolutions to D.C. to sponsor and pass an amendment that argument would on its face be invalid.
    If it were passed and ratified each state could decide, just as the colonies did, that if the current government no longer is meeting their needs, they can opt out.
    The key would be to have a recognized legal process that has been followed for the world to see. If it is specifically allowed by the Constitution, it can't be "unconstitutional". If the steps are carried out as described by law, how could it be "illegal"? An following a legal process as written in our Constitution could hardly be called "treason".
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  11. #41
    Senior Member Array BRTCP88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    574
    I haven't read the entire thread. It's too long. So please forgive me if I've repeated something.

    The Civil War was not fought over slavery. It was fought over states rights. The South had more abolitionist organizations than the North prior to the Civil War. However the extremists in the North wanted the government to force the south to outlaw slavery immediately, while the South wanted to phase it out, allowing for their economy to adjust and for the slaves to recieve education and job training so they could go and find jobs. The result of the Civil War was the collapse of the Southern economy and the large number of African Americans on wellfare now.

    The militia was intended to consist of all able-bodied men with arms. Therefor the debate about whether the 2nd amendment applies to the people or the miltary is moot. THE PEOPLE ARE THE MILITARY! In time of war they would be called to service and then go back to being civilians once the war was over.

    The Founders never intended to have a standing army. You can find numerous quotes from them saying that having a standing army would threaten liberty. Why? Because if the Federal government ever got out of control, they wanted the people to be able to revolt against it. Benjamin Franklin even went so far as to say that we needed to have one every twenty years!

  12. #42
    VIP Member Array AllAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chesterfield, Kakalaki del Sur
    Posts
    2,403
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Wrong. It wiped out states rights, among other things.It incorporated the Federal Government, and everything that the South feared came to be. Even today we have seen discussion of several states leaving the Union because of the heavy handed tactics of a Federal Government that is hostile to the beliefs of many people.All is not well, and if you think it is, you are putting your head in the sand.


    Don't think so? Try not paying your property tax for a few years and you will learn the definition of tyranny first hand.




    NO ONE wants the Federal Government to be out of control. Saying that people want it, because we have it, is like saying Mr.John Public wanted to die because he was speeding when he lost control of his vehicle and got killed.

    It just doesn't work that way.



    I don't know why you see Libertarians as such a threat to society. They have the least amount of influence and their party is basically insignificant in the big scheme of things.

    Along with most of your rhetoric, it just doesn't make any sense. You call the group with the LEAST influence a threat, yet you say that most of the people want to be controlled and most of them probably cant even spell Libertarian.

    Which one is it?



    I think you are confused. I actually know several Libertarians and there is nothing liberal about them. In fact, even suggesting to one that they are liberal is a good way to put your fighting skills to the test.

    Perhaps you think they are a threat because they actually know what they want, unlike the fools that vote for those that promise them a free ride?If the Libertarians didn't embrace the free"drug"use platform, they probably would be the biggest party with the most influence.Is that what scares you?

    Or is the fact that you could lose your livelihood if the Federal Government comes apart at the seams and society and the lifestyles that we enjoy today cease to exist? Living in a vacuum,and believing a lie wont change any of that. Worshiping the Federal Government and believing that things are out of control because the people really want it that way shows a serious lack of understanding of human nature.

    As for the intent of the topic, if the the Second Amendment was as useless as the OP thinks says it was, we would be like every other country in the world where private ownership of weapons is either illegal or severely restricted.

    The Second Amendment is the ONLY reason that we can still possess guns. It is the Presidents, Congressmen, Senators, Judges,Governors, Mayors,and every other legislator that fears the very thing that could stop them from either acting like Dictators or becoming one that continue to whittle away at the Second Amendment piece by piece,little by little.Look at the present administration.

    If the Second was useless, would they spend any time trash talking it every chance they get? Would they walk across the street to stomp on it if it meant nothing? I think not.

    The Second Amendment is the ONLY thing standing in the way of a total dictatorship. When the people have had enough, then, and only then will they work together to fix it, with force if need be. Will they be successful? Could they be successful?

    Only God above knows the answer to that one.
    And that, is just good stuff!
    My Music: www.reverbnation.com/dickiefredericks
    New tunes added.
    "The Double Tap Center Mass Boogie. Learn it, know it, love it, shoot it. Good guys should live, bad guys not so much. " - Ted Nugent 09

  13. #43
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,925
    I'll be danged.

    Someone is paying attention....
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  14. #44
    New Member Array jptet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1

    Re-Elect NJ Assemblyman Carroll, defender of 2nd Amendment

    Please vote for Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll in the upcoming Primary Election on June 2.

    A 14 year veteran of the NJ State Assembly in the 25th District, he consistently defends Second Amendment Rights.

    Official Website of NJ 25th District Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll

  15. #45
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by 2edgesword View Post
    Yes, but even the most overturned court gets it right sometimes.
    Sometimes, not this time. Although the final opinion went against the gun owners. Their statement (on incorporation) was nothing but an inconsequential political views.

    I cursory reading of the historical context in which the 2nd amendment was written provides the historical support for the reasoning given by the 9th circuit.
    I'm not sure what you are referring to since you follow by parsing Chief Justice Waite's opinion in the Cruikshank case.

    "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution."

    Lawful based on what, the inalienable rights referenced in the Declaration of Independence or lawful based on the twisting of those fundamental principles which is so much the case in our current system of justice?[/QUOTE]

    No rights are granted by the Constitution. And yes, the Second Amendment does not protect the right to use guns in an unlawful manner.

    "Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

    Correct. And in the same way what constitutes treason isn't dependent on that instrument (the Constitution).
    Apples and oranges. Treason is well defined and has nothing to do with the discussion. Congress has the power to supress any insurrection.

    The Constitution was written to protect certain principles, chiefly the inalienable rights of the people.
    This could not be more false. The Constitution was written to define a Federal governemnt, explicitly state its enumerated powers, define who, how often, and for how long people can hold various positions. It defines the roles of the states and a method for amending the document. That is it.

    The Bill of Rights was a superfluous political addition to placate the frightened anti-Federalists and ensure the ratification would be unanimous. Far from being the reason for the Constitution, it was instead an afterthought.

    "The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."

    Wrong. It shall not be infringed even by the States or any other government based on the fundamental guiding principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence.
    You are clearly incorrect. The opinion in Barron v. Baltimore established what the Founders intended and explicitly stated in the very first amendment: Congress shall make no law...

    Chief Justice Waite, as well as EVERY Second Amendment (and most B of R) cases that the Court has heard has affirmed the Founders intent. You may wish it to mean something else but it does not.

    At this point it is instructive to read Barron v. Baltimore, the opinion of the Court delivered by one of the Founders, John Marshall. It is instructive precisely because the plantiff used exactly your argument. I will bold some important sections but the entire opinion is exactly twhat the Founders intended.

    "The plaintiff in error contends, that it comes within that clause in the fifth amendment to the constitution, which inhibits the taking of private property for public use, without just compensation. He insists, that this amendment being in favor of the liberty of the citizen, ought to be so construed as to restrain the legislative power of a state, as well as that of the United States. If this proposition be untrue, the court can take no jurisdiction of the cause.

    The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes.

    If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states. In their several constitutions, they have imposed such restrictions on their respective [32 U.S. 243, 248] * governments, as their own wisdom suggested; such as they deemed most proper for themselves. It is a subject on which they judge exclusively, and with which others interfere no further than they are supposed to have a common interest.

    The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists, that the constitution was intended to secure the people of the several states against the undue exercise of power by their respective state governments; as well as against that which might be attempted by their general government. It support of this argument he relies on the inhibitions contained in the tenth section of the first article. We think, that section affords a strong, if not a conclusive, argument in support of the opinion already indicated by the court. The preceding section contains restrictions which are obviously intended for the exclusive purpose of restraining the exercise of power by the departments of the general government. Some of them use language applicable only to congress; others are expressed in general terms. The third clause, for example, declares, that 'no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.' No language can be more general; yet the demonstration is complete, that it applies solely to the government of the United States. In addition to the general arguments furnished by the instrument itself, some of which have been already suggested, the succeeding section, the avowed purpose of which is to restrain state legislation, contains in terms the very prohibition. It declares, that 'no state shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law.' This provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on state legislation.

    The ninth section having enumerated, in the nature of a bill of rights, the limitations intended to be imposed on the powers of the general government, the tenth proceeds to enumerate those which were to operate on the state legislatures. These restrictions are brought together in the same section, and are by express words applied to the states. 'No state shall enter into any treaty,' &c. Perceiving, that in a constitution framed by the people of the United States, for the government of all, no limitation of the action of government on [32 U.S. 243, 249] * the people would apply to the state government, unless expressed in terms, the restrictions contained in the tenth section are in direct words so applied to the states.

    ...

    If the original constitution, in the ninth and tenth sections of the first article, draws this plain and marked line of discrimination between the limitations it imposes on the powers of the general government, and on those of the state; if, in every inhibition intended to act on state power, words are employed, which directly express that intent; some strong reason must be assigned for departing from this safe and judicious course, in framing the amendments, before that departure can be assumed. We search in vain for that reason.

    Had the people of the several states, or any of them, required changes in their constitutions; had they required additional safe-guards to liberty from the apprehended encroachments of their particular governments; the remedy was in their own hands, and could have been applied by themselves. A [32 U.S. 243, 250] * convention could have been assembled by the discontented state, and the required improvements could have been made by itself. The unwieldy and cumbrous machinery of procuring a recommendation from two-thirds of congress, and the assent of three-fourths of their sister states, could never have occurred to any human being, as a mode of doing that which might be effected by the state itself. Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the constitutions of the several states, by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments, in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.

    But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the constitution of the United States, was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained, that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those unvaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government-not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them.

    We are of opinion, that the provision in the fifth amendment to the constitution, declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the [32 U.S. 243, 251] * government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states. We are, therefore, of opinion, that there is no repugnancy between the several acts of the general assembly of Maryland, given in evidence by the defendants at the trial of this cause, in the court of that state, and the constitution of the United States. This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction of the cause, and it is dismissed."


    Again, you can argue with Nordyke v King but just as other fundamental rights have been incorporated the 2nd amendment, if it is viewed as a fundamental right, enjoys the protection afforded by the 14th amendment.
    The Fourteenth Amendment does no such thing as demonstrated in Cruikshank, Adamson and other post 14th cases. Charles Faimanwrote an extensive Stanford Law Review article debunking that view.

    Prior to the Revolutionary War the British attempted to disarm the population to prevent an armed revolt. Actions were taken on the part of revolutionaries to protect and secure those arms. To deny that a preservation of that right by the people as a protection against the rise of an oppressive federal government is to ignor the context in which the amendment was written and required to properly interpret its meaning.
    Yes, the Federal government cannot infringe on the right to bear arms. What is you point here?

    "Many people fear tyranny in our government but it is simply not possible. We have elections every two years."

    That depends who is defining tyranny.
    Tyranny is well defined.

    African-Americans suffered a form of tyranny in the U.S. Germany had one of the most educated populations in the 1930's and I'd argue that the Jews living in Germany, many that intially believed it couldn't happen, found Hilter's rule tyrannical.
    Indeed.

    Fifty years ago the U.S. was the greatest lender nation on the planet. We enjoyed a technological lead no one could touch. We had an educational system that was the envy of the world. We were that land of opportunity that was admired by the rest of the world.
    We still are the land of opportunity, which is why we are the envy of the world and most people aspire to come to America (even illegally.)

    [QUOTE]Today we are the greater debtor nation on the planet. We have lost our technological edge to India, China and Israel. Our educational system ranks about 15th in the world. We are no longer the land of opportunity.[/QUPTE]

    We have not lost our technological edge. We lead the world in every technology. Can you provide some examples of where you think the nations you mentioned have a superiority? And most people in the world would dearly love our science and engineering education provided by many schools nationwide.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. WA Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 04:35 PM
  2. CCW permit will be useless now?
    By Northface in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: November 17th, 2009, 07:13 PM
  3. A Useless Feature
    By Euclidean in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2005, 05:10 PM
  4. .17 - useless?
    By P95Carry in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 15th, 2005, 12:15 PM
  5. Useless Information
    By Bumper in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 9th, 2005, 05:11 PM

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment useless

,
amendment 7 useless?
,
amendment that are useless
,
amendments that are pointless
,
amendments that are useless
,

armed revolt declaration of independence

,
constitution of independence second amendment
,
is the 2nd amendment useless
,
second amendment useless
,

the second amendment is useless

,
what amendment 2 is useless
,
why is the second amendment useless
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors