CSGV and the eternally wrong No Self-Defense in the Constitution

CSGV No Self Defense

Except that there was not only a discussion but a paper published by the Anti-Federalists who eventually led to that pesky addition called the Bill of Rights:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.
The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents
December 12, 1787

But a lie repeated enough times……

10 Replies to “CSGV and the eternally wrong No Self-Defense in the Constitution”

  1. It’s one of their defaults when they’re trying to distract from some PR disaster or court loss. If Ladd ever went back in time to meet Madison, he’ld get the b!tchslapping of the century.




    0



    0
  2. Remind them of Amendment IX: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    Trust me, they absolutely hate that one. You can add it to the list of others within the Bill of Rights that they hate (hint: the number they hate is ten)




    0



    0
  3. At no time did the Founders ever discuss any supposed “right” to continue breathing. It’s not even in the Constitution, nor in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, while the Declaration says “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness,” the government certainly has the power to prohibit breathing. And if you die, that’s on you.




    0



    0
  4. They also didn’t reference hunting in regards to the 2A, either.

    Why? Because it was as common back then as going to the super market, that’s why.




    0



    0
  5. The antis seem to require that the 2A specify each and every aspect of firearms….size, capacity, color, grip style, material made from, length, width, height, right handed/left handed, etc, ad nauseum……to establish whether or not is it protected under the admentment. Are there any accounts of antis screaming when Sam Colt invented the revolver? Or when self contained metallic cartidges were develped? What about the Rollin White patent for the bored through revolver cylibder to accept said metallic cartridges?….the Henry rifle with it’s 15 round capacity? The 1873 Winchester with it’s 10+ capacity…oh…then double action revolvers?…Where were all the anti’s then to scream that NONE of those developments/improvements were included in the 2A?




    0



    0

Feel free to express your opinions. Trolling, overly cussing and Internet Commandos will not be tolerated .