Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can't do much with guns in the USA. They're not going anywhere. But I will say this about the Second Amendment:
The part about the "well regulated militia" is dead in the water. There is such technology asymmetry between the government and private citizens that a group of people with a bunch of basic guns would be insufficient to mount a really viable resistance.
Ever hear of "Arab Spring"? Don't believe that our dictatorship is immune.
Considering the entire purpose for the 2nd Amendment went out the window long ago; to preempt the need for a standing professional army. I don't see why not.
You have no clue do you? Its the peoples right to overthrow tyrannical government the Founders knew this all too well.
You can't do much with guns in the USA. They're not going anywhere. But I will say this about the Second Amendment:
The part about the "well regulated militia" is dead in the water. There is such technology asymmetry between the government and private citizens that a group of people with a bunch of basic guns would be insufficient to mount a really viable resistance.
Aren't you the one who lived under the Soviet occupation of your homeland ?
Its not the weapons but the will not to bow down to tyranny....
You can't do much with guns in the USA. They're not going anywhere. But I will say this about the Second Amendment:
The part about the "well regulated militia" is dead in the water. There is such technology asymmetry between the government and private citizens that a group of people with a bunch of basic guns would be insufficient to mount a really viable resistance.
I disagree.
I think the citizens in our area could hold their own.
You talk as if its some sort fantasy world. "unloaded gun on him and killed him before"... Are you really serious? You will have the presence of mind for this? Colorodo allows CCW.. So i am assuming few people in theater did carry concealed weapons. But natural instinct is save ones own self first. Nobody acts a hero unless its gun on their head. Case in point is what happened in Gabby Gifford shooting.. There were 2 people with guns but they never shot the gunman. They just ran away.
Again you just seem to jump the liberal v/s conservative mode. It's just diversionary tactic. I am a conservative but hate guns. I don't want anybody to have guns except the army and service folks.
Yes, that is what YOU want. However, many of us want to own guns.
Fortunately, you do not have the right to impose YOUR wishes and views upon the rest of us. Shoot at someone shooting at me? Of course I would. That is the NATURAL reaction when threatened is to protect yourself.
Absolutely not! And to propagate such action is sedition, and to perpetrate it treason.
The argument that we, as citizens, have a constitutional right to take up arms against our lawfully constituted government is without any foundation. There is no support for such right, either historically or constitutionally. The American Revolution was a war waged for separation of the American colonies from the rule of the English monarchy, and not a rebellion against the established colonial governments. The colonies were being taxed under English laws in which they had no elected representatives in Parliament; and when the Crown refused to grant representation, the colonies, in Continental Congress, declared their separate statehood and independence. Likewise, the reliance on the supposed historical record of the founding fathers is wrong. George Washington, who is considered the father of our nation and who commanded the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, was the president of the Constitutional Convention that drafted our Constitution that is the framework of our government of laws; and thereafter elected to be the first President of the United States. During his term in office, President Washington put down the Whisky rebellion of 1794, which was an armed insurrection against the government in protest of the tax enacted by Congress in 1791. Washington personally lead the organized militia to quash the rebellion and assert the federal government’s authority over the states and their citizens.
You - and people like you - would do well to learn from history, and stop trying to rewrite it.
I think it's *your* understanding of history and the Framer's intentions is twisted so miserably leftist it's *you* that needs to get an education on these issues. It's you trying to rewrite history to fit your lib worldview.
Free speech is regulated. You may be charged and found guilty of murder by using your "free speech" to talk someone into murdering for you. So to should guns be regulated when they can be used for murder. See the similarities?
Are you freaking serious? Our gun rights are THE MOST HEAVILY REGULATED RIGHTS we have.
What can you SAY that's actually a crime? (BTW, as has been pointed out, your example above doesn't count). The conditions that must be met in order to actually be guilty of a crime when speaking are very few, and very specific. There are thousands and thousands of gun laws on the books. You can't have that gun, regardless of the fact that's operationally identical to that other gun. You can't have a pistol grip because... well, it looks scary. You can't buy those bullets, because they're politically incorrect. You can't buy more than X guns per month.
Can you imagine your 1st Amendment rights being restricted in this manner? You can't go to church more than once per month. Your newspaper can only be published monthly and must not contain more than five articles of no more than 100 words each. You have to get a permit ($) which must be renewed annually ($) and have a background check done before you can start a blog.
Saying that our gun rights aren't already regulated enough (or too much) is either the most ignorant statement of the decade or the most dishonest.
Considering the entire purpose for the 2nd Amendment went out the window long ago; to preempt the need for a standing professional army.
Really? Did you ever actually READ the Constitution?
If the purpose of the 2nd is to preempt the need for a standing army, then why is the following also included in the Constitution?
"The Congress shall have Power ... To raise and support Armies ... To provide and maintain a Navy"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
