2nd Ammendment Debate

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Issue #1

Geek: “Privileges can be taken away.”

Thunder: So can rights, and many smart antigun proponents are trying to get support for a Constitutional Amendment to counter the Second Amendment, realizing the right has to be taken away formally since the law is so directly stated.

Issue #2

Geek: “The Second Amendment grants the unfettered right to bear arms. Period.”

Thunder: Not exactly. There are all kinds of restrictions firearms and there always have been…[and] there are few absolute ‘rights’ that aren’t moderated for public consideration - just like the old principle that the First Amendment doesn’t permit you to yell ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre.
[/quote]

I get what you mean, and I agree from that perspective. I can’t exercise my second amendment rights by idly loading an extra clip for my Glock while waiting in line at the bank. What I mean by “unfettered” is that each individual possesses an inherent right to possess weapons of his choice for his, his family’s, and his country’s defense. You’re right; the constitution uses the word “arms,” not “guns.” In Colonial times, the “arms” of the day were guns. Now, knowing the original intent of the amendment (and also the definition of the word “militia” in that context) is key to my reasoning. Arming the populace was intended to protect the borders, and at least as importantly, to keep the government in check. Imagine, a government that wants to be kept in check! Talk about humility (Can you imagine any modern politician encouraging gun ownership on that basis?). Is it not logical then, based on the reasoning of the founders and the current virtual monopoly on force held by the government, the citizenry should at least be able to stand a chance? To say nothing of the possibility (however remote) of an invasion from abroad, or wait, did that happen recently? Oh yeah, I guess it did. One concealed firearm holder on each of those planes, and we’d still be marveling at the view from the top of the World Trade Center.

Now, on your first point, that’s exactly what I’m getting at. Those people are trying to create the illusion in the minds of the masses that it’s a privilege. Once people fall for that, the chipping can begin. Actually you said it has to be “formally” taken away, and that’s true, but I would say that it IS BEING formally taken away, just incrementally. There were no real Federal gun laws in the US until the 1930s. Then the Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned interstate commerce in firearms except via “licensed” dealers, was passed to (you guessed it) “provide support to law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence.” It is also likely sourced from the German gun law enacted in 1938 and signed by none other than Adolph Schickelgruber, which declared that certain weapons were “hunting weapons” (the US equivalent term is “legitimate sporting purpose”). Oh, but the term is not clearly defined, so now we can ban entire classes of weapons! See? Isn’t that conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient? Herr Hitler then used the registration lists (some US states use gun registration in the name of, you know, “public safety”) to send the Gestapo to confiscate all guns from those who weren’t “reliable” (read: not Nazi party members). I don’t have to tell you what happened next.

The media is a big help too. By convincing most people that certain classes of weapons just aren’t “sensible” they garner a lot of support for the gun ban movement. Those of you who say such things as “no one in their right mind needs XXXX,” or “it’s just not reasonable to own YYYYY,” ask yourself what is the logic upon which that is based? The essence of this issue is that, as you read in the posts above, everyone has a different idea of what “common sense” ownership is.

I love freedom far more than I fear death (I thought this sentence should stand alone).

So the risk of someone taking me out in a hail of full-auto Uzi fire is far superseded by my sincere conviction that I or anyone else should be able to lawfully possess such a weapon without having to have every detail of my private life on file at the ATF.

“They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”

-Benjamin Franklin

I apologize for bring so long winded, and to those who to take the time to read, think and respond, thank you!

42

To reiterate:

BRILLIANT. I think that can be applied to so many absurd regulations as well. Great statement.

Bandgeek, I for one read that entire thing and I couldn’t agree with you more. Good post.

43

[quote]NewDamage wrote:
Bandgeek, I for one read that entire thing and I couldn’t agree with you more. Good post.[/quote]

Damage,

Thanks and thanks. I appreciate you taking the time.

44

Hello guys,

As a proud gun owner, NRA member and law enforcement officer, I have a few quick points in relation to so-called assault weapons as they were brought up.

First, you can’t extend the 2nd Amendment to destructive devices(rocket launcers, grenades, explosive devices etc.). Tere is case law on this and they are not classified as firearms under the 2nd amendment. Besides, they don’t have a legitimate sportive purpose or a legitimate self-defense purpose. If you need an M-79 to defend yourself, your best bet is to get out of dodge.

However, “assault weapons” are a whole different story. As they were defined under the 1993 Clinton Gun Ban, assault weapons are categorized by cosmetic features like bayonette lugs and collapsing stocks. Thats why I dont even like using the term because it isn’t something an educated firearms handler would ever use. We would break weapons down into 4 distinct categories…handguns, shotguns, rifles(assault rifle is a proper term) and submachineguns. This was nothing but a political ruse that a good segment of the un-educated(in regards to firearms) public fell for. Here’s why it was nonsense(aside from all the good points you guys already brought up about gun control being useless):

-assault weapons, at least legally owned ones, are not used in crimes(approx 1% of firearms crimes involved “assault weapon” firearms). They are usually cost prohibitive for the common scumbag. In addition, Instant background checks(which are the only gun regulation I support) determine if someone has a criminal record, keeping them from purchasing the gun. These weapons are not easy to conceal either. Besides, and you can trust me on this, if the criminals want a Tech-9 they will get it…ban the legal ones all you want, it won’t stop them.

-the cosmetic features that the ban prohibited did little or nothing to change the function of the weapon(a pre-ban AR-15 shoots the same round just as accurately as a post-ban and to the same effect). As a side note, most of the banned weapons are still being produced with slight alterations.

-assault firearms DO have a sportive purpose. The AR-15 is the most popular target match rifle in this country. Semi-automatic shotguns are the preferred shotgun of choice by the majority of hunters. To say these weapons have no other purpose but to kill people en masse is a lie.

-assault firearms DO have a self-defense purpose. Pistol caliber AR-15’s are perfect for defending your homestead. So are semi-automatic shotguns. In fact, depending on the size of your property and where you live, rifle-caliber assault weapons may be perfectly appropriate for defending your life and your family’s…an example would be the more remote parts of Texas on the Mexican border which often sees violence against homeowners perpetrated by smugglers. As a law enforcement officer, access to these weapons from my private collection allows me to train far more often with the weapons I use at work than I would be able to if I relied only on the few opportunities I get to use them in official training.

-Lastly, the founding fathers saw firearms ownership as a barrier against tyranny. Fortunately, we have a good government and don’t need to worry about this anymore. However(indulge me on this), there could come a time when this country faces invasion. (The Chinese aren’t going away any time soon). If that were to happen say 40 or 50 years from now, the army and police would not be enough to resist. It would take the militia(all able-bodied men in the population) to re-appear again and having these men armed with single-shot shotguns won’t be enough.

I’m glad to see such support for the 2nd amendment here. I go on other political boards occasionally and get assaulted by the rabid leftists out there. I guess I can chalk that up to the T-man mentality of defending yourself and those around you who are less able to do so. Thats my 2 cents, and I don’t care if TC doesn’t like it…

45

Even if you agree that some sort of gun control is advisable, the thing that scares me is the political groups that are sponsoring the controls. There is little doubt that many (if not all) of these groups want to eliminate gun ownership all together, thus ensuring that our safety is thrust even further into the hands of the government. This is one of the times where the slippery slope in quite real.

46

I don’t know about specific “case law” in this instance, but I do know there is “case law” that destroys much of the other nine amendments too, so it’s no great surprise. The terms naming “legitimate purposes” for firearms, as I mentioned, are not clearly defined, and are arguably lifted (as is much of the 1968 Gun Control Act) from the Nazi gun law enacted in 1938. If a few of us had M-79’s (yeah, I had to look it up), maybe we could RETAKE Dodge.

With all due respect sir, I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what they were saying in Germany when they ELECTED Hitler shortly after allowing their guns to be registered.

Indeed they are not, and the radical Muslims are already here. I don’t expect them to be obeying our weapons laws when the doodie hits the propeller.

Reappear? The question I have is, where did they go? I think most of them are in prison on illegal weapons charges. Maybe in 50 years they’ll be out again.

Please don’t take anything I’m saying as disrespectful. I have the utmost respect for you as a law enforcement officer - and fellow NRA member :-). But compromise is death. I know some may think I’m radical (or God forbid, PARANOID), but I just happen to know a little bit ‘o’ history.

47

Pretty much anyone with a couple of grand can buy a lathe and a benchtop mill and fabricate whatever firearm they want, provided they can find the right barrel because barrels are tough to make.

Gun control is like Prohibition - there’s too much demand, it’s too easy to get around the laws, and people have a right to own firearms just like they had a right to drink if they wanted to.

48

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Major Dan brings up some excellent points. Being a hunter I agree there is no reason someone would need an AK-47 or Uzi. Weapons like that are for the sole purpose of taking down humans in large numbers. Another thing not every person out there possesses the maturity are intelligence to responsibly own a firearm. There do need to be some checks and balances.[/quote]

You do realize that once they take my black rifle they will be coming for your “sniper” rifle right?

mike

49

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
but you also have to think of the David Koresh’s and criminal element out there that can use them in a devastatingly destructive manner! [/quote]

Actually this is a good example of why we need firearms. David Koresh may well have been a douchebag, but he wasn’t the bad guy there. That would be Janet Reno and America’s domestic terrorist force (aka the ATF).

Same thing here in Idaho at Ruby Ridge. You’re being played my friend. This was a case of the .gov showing us what it can and will do to those that get out of line. Their defense? Oh, they were cultists, or they were white supremecists, so don’t worry about their rights.

mike

50

[quote]JD430 wrote:

First, you can’t extend the 2nd Amendment to destructive devices(rocket launcers, grenades, explosive devices etc.). Tere is case law on this and they are not classified as firearms under the 2nd amendment. Besides, they don’t have a legitimate sportive purpose or a legitimate self-defense purpose. If you need an M-79 to defend yourself, your best bet is to get out of dodge. [/quote]

Let’s go a little further into this. If we accept the premise that the 2nd amendment is there for the people to be able to defend against the government, how am I supposed to take a stand against a SWAT team or nat’l guard unit rolling up in a BTR if I can’t own/train with an RPG, AT4 or whatever?

I think we ban them because they’re scary. Look at me, I was a TOW gunner in the Corps. The TOW is a big anti-tank missile. Now I can own an AK with which I can kill large quantities of people, but I can’t own a TOW missile with which I can only kill a few if they are in a vehicle or something.

I think the .gov recognizes it as a valuable militia weapon and banned it. The people are scared of explosions and the Fudd’s (the hunting rifle and clay pigeon crew) have rarely stood up for the RKBA in the first place.[quote]

-Lastly, the founding fathers saw firearms ownership as a barrier against tyranny. Fortunately, we have a good government and don’t need to worry about this anymore.[/quote]

We certainly aren’t in the place a lot of countries are, but we are certainly headed down that road. Just look at Obama’s 72 degrees speech and you can see the potential for tyranny in this country. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. JD, you know as well as anyone the march toward socialism we are on.

mike

51

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
We can wish for the world that should be, or live in the world that is.

But I’m granting you the opportunity to wish, and you’re ignoring it.

I understand that the question I posit only pushes the crux of the issue back to another weapon - I get it and knew it before I posted the question.

I still can’t understand your reluctance to prefer everyone to be armed to no one being armed. If the playing level is even either way ( all armed or all not armed), why wouldn’t you prefer the less POTENTIALLY violent option?

Thanks all for a great thread, by the way.[/quote]

Because it’s a stupid idea. I can defend myself against multiple opponents with a gun if they attack me. I can even do this if they have guns. Medieval days, I’m screwed.

I can defend myself against many people due to my physical size. Many people can’t, such as the women, children, and elderly.

I know of cases where women in their 80s successfully defended themselves against a violent attack. Exaplin how theyn can do this without a firearm.

It’s a stupid, childish liberal fantasy that somehow we will be safer if we take away guns. I’ll still have my crossbow for hunting. I can hit a person at 50 yards in the chest easily.

This crossbow will penetrate most body armor to distances less than 50 yards.

Since the dawn of time, people used rocks, spears, etc. And those still exist.

52

[quote]Geddy55 wrote:
Even if you agree that some sort of gun control is advisable, the thing that scares me is the political groups that are sponsoring the controls.

There is little doubt that many (if not all) of these groups want to eliminate gun ownership all together, thus ensuring that our safety is thrust even further into the hands of the government. This is one of the times where the slippery slope in quite real.[/quote]

Exactly. They want them all,not " reasonable control". Reasonable control is keeping all your pistol shots in a 25 yard target in the chest area, or MOA and less.

53

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Bandgeek
Don’t get your panties in a twist! Thats just my opinion. I actually wouldn’t mind owning an AK-47, but taking away the fun of shooting at paper targets what was the primary purpose weapons like that were designed for? To kill muthafuckas lots of em! Did you ever see the video from the bank robbery in L.A. a few years ago?

The one where the two guys with AK-47’s and body armor held of what seemed to be the whole L.A. police dept. I bet theres more then one L.A.P.D. member who would say your full of shit! [/quote]

One problem was that the LAPD took a pistol to a rifle fight. Don’t try it. One guy with a deer rifle could have solved that problem very quickly.

Don’t buy the power of the AK 47!!! they weren’t designed to kill a whole lotta muthafuckas quick, they were designed to get a whole lot of dumb muthafuckas get shooting quickly with a muthafuckin gun the couldn’t fuck up.

In one way they’re the shittiest battle rifle out there, and one way the best. The best part is that they will always work. they have very loose tolerances and will work when thrown in the mud and with very little maintenance.

Their accuracy sucks, probably 4-6 moa. Of course the average grunt in other armies is very poorly trained, basically point at the other gun and pull the trigger.

I’m a lot more scared of a guy in a tower with a deer rifle and a few boxes of ammo.

54

Did anyone notice that this discussion is about four years old?

55

[quote]vroom wrote:
Did anyone notice that this discussion is about four years old?[/quote]

I bumped it to show the contrast with the current discussion.

56

[quote]vroom wrote:
Did anyone notice that this discussion is about four years old?[/quote]

More like 200 plus years…

57

[quote]WillBrink wrote:
vroom wrote:
Did anyone notice that this discussion is about four years old?

More like 200 plus years…

[/quote]

Ooh, snap!

58

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Here’s a question:

Would you prefer EVERYONE to own a gun or NO ONE to own a gun?[/quote]

Nobody. I like my chances in a fist fight better than a gunfight because I’m faster, stronger, and way better looking than most people.

But I do love my guns:
glock .40
mossberg persuader 12ga.
S&W/M&P AR-15 (my new obama purchase)

I tried to upload pics of them but apprently I’m a failure.