2nd Ammendment

[Buccaneerfan]

I was having a heated discussion with my brother (who cannot see any reason why civilians would need to have semi or fully automatic weapons) about the 2nd ammendment. It occurred to me that with all 30-some odd thousand members of this blog (most of us able to hit a pop can at 600+ yds), I would feel sorry for anyone who was crazy enough to invade the U.S. (Or try to take our rifles from us!) But it did make me wonder. . . . Do you believe that civilians should have the right to own semi or fully automatic weapons. I just want to see what you all think.

 

[permaculture]

Here are a few points to bring up with your brother-in-law.

1. The colonists had access to the same weapons as the military, as do we today - See District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. 6 million dead Jews, along with tens of millions of other dead Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, Africans, etc. would disagree that only the governments should have the guns.
3. If he is a liberal , ask him if he would want the Sarah Palin administration to only have the guns. This usually turns them around quickly if all else has failed.

 

[Buccaneerfan]

Ha Ha! I love the Palin thing! He just says he can't foresee ever having to overthrow a tyranical government. But I think that is the point. We still need to be able to have the same weapons as our government just in case. I don't think it will ever come to that either, but I do think that this is the exact reason our forefathers put the second ammendment in.

 

[JeffP40]

Your brother is an idiot. Ask him why he cannot be trusted with ANY firearm, for that is what he is saying. If he has to be restricted, he must not be responsible, and don't let him give you the same old, "but certain people should not have these things" crap. Restrictions are only for those who abide by them. Ask him why we have such a drug problem. There should be no problem, for they are "illegal". You probably will not get him to change his thinking, because it is not thinking, only "feeling", and as such, is almost always wrong and unchanging.
Yes, I should be allowed to have anything I want. My behavior is not a problem, so I will not use anything the wrong way. Libtards never see an individual, only a collective. Stupid is as stupid allows.

 

[HARPERC]

Well every family has one. Some more. To answer your question however yes I believe law abiding, private citizens should be able to possess automatic weapons. Others make most of the points, but I believe I have a right to defend not only myself , and my family, but my property as well. I DON'T BELIEVE YOUR BROTHER HAS A RIGHT TO DECIDE HOW I'M GOING TO DO THAT. Rolling over is alway an option he can choose for himself. Have him take a ride along with almost any urban PD, and see if he can't see the enemy at the gate. At least ostriches are picky about where they bury their heads

 

[justgoto]

The colonists had access to the same weapons as the military,

I would put it as "the colonists had state of the art firearms."

The only restrictions as far as firearms go, were put on government.. as in "restrictive clauses" of the bill of rights; "shall not be infringed."

When I was young, these facts and the reasoning behind them were known and understood. Unfortunately, today, some people can't wrap their head around the notion that, The Constitution is law.

 

[justgoto]

I DON'T BELIEVE YOUR BROTHER HAS A RIGHT TO DECIDE HOW I'M GOING TO DO THAT.

Hypocritical. Why do you then have that "right?"

yes I believe law abiding, private citizens should be able to possess automatic weapons.

That is you deciding who can own specific firearms, other than what the Bill of Rights prescribes.

I believe I have a right to defend not only myself , and my family, but my property as well.

So shoplifters shouldn't have the right to self defense? How about jay-walkers?

The Law is specific.

Amendment II
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.

Every class of 'people' is included; to not include all "people" would be an "infringement."

Insuring "the security of a free State," is impossible if the State decides who is armed.

 

[HARPERC]

justgoto
You're trying to say something to me, and I'm missing it. I'm following this thread after working 12 hour night shifts, and my clarity might not be at it's best.
1) Hypocritical? I believe his brother has the same rights as I do, and has the right to choose not to exercise them.
2) Law abiding citizens? Not being sarcastic just an extreme example trying get what your telling me. Do you believe inmates locked in supermax prisons have the right to bear arms?
3) Shoplifters and Jaywalkers ? If you're asking me should a person lose their firearms rights over minor infractions-absolutely not, but shoplifters have placed themselves on offense, and assaulting a shop owner to escape isn't self defense. A person crossing the street illegally to catch a bus etc. isn't going to see a threat response from me, but if I check my 6, and see his buddies closing in somebody is likely to get run over.
I agree with your "Constitution as Law" comment, and suspect we agree on the application of the 2nd amendment. Not certain if that will come through in an Internet forum.
Sincerely,
Carl

 

[dirtball]

You all started this, so here is my 2 cents


A LITTLE GUN HISTORY . . .



In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From
1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to
1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to
1945, a total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to
1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to
1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to
1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to
1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the
20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia
were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be
destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers
more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides ar e up 3 .2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes,
44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms
are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned
them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically
upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that
their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break- ins
and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to
explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort
and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of
guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts abov e
prove it.

You won't see this data on th e U.S. evening news, or hear
politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and
property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the
law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During
WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most
Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all
of your friends. I just did.


Dave

 

[Buccaneerfan]

Dirtball, I have heard about the history that you talked about but where did you find the info on Australia? That story alone takes most of my discussions about gun control from hypothetical to a matter of fact. Let us know where you found that please. I found some of those statistics from the NRA but there was also an article that said the Australian govt asked the NRA to stop publishing their facts because they had been falsified.

 

[dirtball]

This is the latest info I could find, some of the data has changed since the report used in the article above, but there has been NO meaningful reduction in crime.

Results of the '96 Australian Gun Laws (updated 2009) (GunsAndCrime.org)

Dave

 

[silvertip-co]

I'd have already shot him. But after I told him there is no separation of church and state in Constitiution, and when he was done choking on that I'd have told him that the 16th Amendment was never approved so Federal Income Tax is unConstitutional. Then I'd have shot him, prob in knees first as no use in wasting bulets on a good head shot as his head is empty anyway and he prob voted for Husseinobama.