U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-21-2015, 02:23 PM
 
3,217 posts, read 1,715,010 times
Reputation: 1842

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
One isolated incident?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/19/us...ntry.html?_r=0

"U.S. Forest Service data reveals that of the 1,126 shooting violation citations issued nationwide last year, more than a quarter occurred in Colorado, the Times found. Some 274 shooting violations were reported in the state’s Pike and San Isabel national forests. The total number of violations nationwide top those reported more than 10 years ago by about 300."

https://www.hcn.org/wotr/16348
These people are acting criminally. Same as happens in ghettos, only in ghettos they are actually shooting at someone. They are criminals for breaking the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-21-2015, 07:27 PM
 
793 posts, read 1,127,828 times
Reputation: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
Your last sentence says everything pertinent about this issue.

Picture the forefathers viewing the unintended results of their misunderstood amendment and wondering what the heck happened?
You're right - it was misunderstood-

The amendment was designed so that private citizens could have equivalent arms against threats foreign and domestic. So in its current form, it's very damaged. A good first start to get back to their intentions is to abolish the NFA and GCA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2015, 09:07 PM
 
18,118 posts, read 10,302,839 times
Reputation: 13225
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2tall View Post
You're right - it was misunderstood-

The amendment was designed so that private citizens could have equivalent arms against threats foreign and domestic. So in its current form, it's very damaged. A good first start to get back to their intentions is to abolish the NFA and GCA.
Then I guess the next logical step would be to disband your military...all of it; since there wasn't one when it was crafted intending the citizens to have the means to defend themselves against a foreign threat or a tyrannical government. You're gonna save a lot of moola with that move fer sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2015, 10:30 PM
 
32,297 posts, read 26,153,180 times
Reputation: 18933
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
Then I guess the next logical step would be to disband your military...all of it; since there wasn't one when it was crafted intending the citizens to have the means to defend themselves against a foreign threat or a tyrannical government. You're gonna save a lot of moola with that move fer sure.
there WAS a military when the constitution was crafted, the navy and marine corps. the continental army was disbanded once the war was over though. however since the president is the commander in chief of the military, and the constitution allows for a military, and congress funds a military, and has since the beginning of this country, why should the military be disbanded?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2015, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Clifton, NJ
9 posts, read 15,510 times
Reputation: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan View Post
It seems like everywhere I look and see, I'm being pressured to buy a gun...not just one gun, multiple ones. Gun shows all over the place, advertisements in newspapers and magazines, and non-stop talk about guns on TV and the radio.

It's like American culture expects me to be carrying around a gun 24/7, and that if I don't own multiple firearms, I'm somehow a second class citizen. Anyone else tired of this?

No one is putting a gun to your head! pun intended. Listen. As a previous NON gun owner I used to think "Why the hell do you need to own or carry a gun?". Well as far as advertising goes you can turn it off or turn away.

I lived in a City called Jersey City NJ for most of my life and there was no gun culture to speak of then. I witnessed alot of bad things and crime in Jersey City. It wasn't popular to talk about or own guns back then as far as I knew. But you know who had them and used them the local criminals and gang members. I personally witnessed a thug showing me his gun in his wasteband when I was probably 13 then. Long story short I was surrounded by a Local Gang in front of my porch and was close to getting jumped but luckily I went to the same public school as a few of the kids and they decided to leave me alone. This was at like 13 years old.

When I finally had kids and a family I quickly realized something I always knew but couldn't do anything about, I live in a sh#$y area. I eventually moved my family out of there . I did my research on guns in general and found that I actually enjoyed it as a hobby. Now as a family man I own a few handguns, shotguns and rifles. With the way the society is turning to sh$# in general is I ask a new question, "Why the hell can't I carry a gun to Protect my family and property?" At its core the 2nd Amendment allows you to protect yourself agains the Big Bad Govt and people. If you choose not to get into the Gun Culture that is your choice. There is nothing wrong with you not being into guns, you have a choice which is why this country is so great.

Basically when society turns to Sh#$, which is certainly possible, I will be ready, just in case. The gun is a tool not a demon from hell. It can be used for good and bad. All I know is when I am with my family I would rather have the ability to protect them and not rely on the cops that will get there tooo late. You have the Freedom and Choice to utilize the 2nd Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2015, 12:57 PM
 
Location: NJ
16,812 posts, read 11,755,818 times
Reputation: 10810
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan View Post
It seems like everywhere I look and see, I'm being pressured to buy a gun...not just one gun, multiple ones. Gun shows all over the place, advertisements in newspapers and magazines, and non-stop talk about guns on TV and the radio.

It's like American culture expects me to be carrying around a gun 24/7, and that if I don't own multiple firearms, I'm somehow a second class citizen. Anyone else tired of this?
Stunted dem/lib minds think money is the answer to all problems, now they have concluded guns are the answer to all problem. At least now they offer a choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2015, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,719 posts, read 13,825,147 times
Reputation: 6938
You probably heard this one already, truly crazy.

I'm sure you will agree there are too many guns out there in the hands of careless gun owners.

Quote:
(CNN)An 11-year-old St. Louis-area boy left alone at home with his 4-year-old sister staved off several home invasion attempts before finally shooting and killing a 16-year-old intruder, according to police.

At least one neighbor, however, offered a different account of the shooting, telling CNN affiliate KMOV that the boys were arguing on the front porch before the younger child pulled out a gun and shot the teenager.
11-year-old St. Louis boy kills teen - CNN.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 05:24 AM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
6,976 posts, read 7,748,024 times
Reputation: 5670
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaseMan View Post
It seems like everywhere I look and see, I'm being pressured to buy a gun...not just one gun, multiple ones. Gun shows all over the place, advertisements in newspapers and magazines, and non-stop talk about guns on TV and the radio.

It's like American culture expects me to be carrying around a gun 24/7, and that if I don't own multiple firearms, I'm somehow a second class citizen. Anyone else tired of this?
Must be because of where you live. I rarely see any advertisements for firearms in my location.

Personally, I don't care if you or anyone else has a firearm. As long as you aren't trying to keep me from owning one, it's all good in my book.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 05:50 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
14,164 posts, read 11,582,810 times
Reputation: 13220
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
Then I guess the next logical step would be to disband your military...all of it; since there wasn't one when it was crafted intending the citizens to have the means to defend themselves against a foreign threat or a tyrannical government. You're gonna save a lot of moola with that move fer sure.
rbohm answered this, but I'm gonna elaborate some. It seems you're not a US citizen, and have a very weak knowledge of our history. There was a military , and had been one, when the Constitution was written. It was there before the Declaration of Independence. The colonies put out individual levies, to fund the Continental Army and Navy. These were regular troops, and militia either galvanized with them, as separate units, usually, or fought small unit actions, on their own. They could draw supplies from Continental Army stores, but supplied their own weapons and gear, for the most part That last part is the reason for the 2A.

"Well regulated" means personally equipped and armed. NOT dependent on the regular military, to supply arms. The intent of the 2A, is that the militia be able to operate independently. Not relying on the government or regular military for either arms or orders. Thus, the militia, We the People, needs to be "well regulated". So, our RIGHT to ,personal, individual, privately owned, firearms, "shall not be infringed"!!! This, SK the militia can call up, and form up, independently, free of reliance on the government, and not, directly , accountable to the government, either. Should the government be the threat.

What you are suggesting, in interpretation of our 2A, is the exact opposite of its intent. It doesn't take a Constitutional scholar to figure that out, either. One, simple, rhetorical, question, blows your take out of the water. Why, would the Framers, list one right, subject to government regulation, amidst all the rest, that are inaliable? Intending that this be a collective right, when all the rest are individual, and not subject to any government ...approval?

With the types of arms, in use today, its a good idea for we, the militia, to have at least one weapon, chambered in the round in a caliber currently in use by the military. That way, should the militia be galvanized with a regular military unit, ammunition can be procured for our weapons. During the Revolution, militia could obtain powder and flints from the Continentals, or take from the British.but shot could be problematic. A Pennsylvania Long Rifle did not use GBE same ball as a Brown Bess or Harper's Ferry, musket.

But I digress. Point is, the modern militia should bear being "well regulated" , in mind , and own appropriate arms, for the times. I know this doesn't fit your narrative (or rather whimsical musings), but, that the 2A, that's the militia, that's the RIGHT to be "well regulated". Not the infringement of government oversight.

Last edited by NVplumber; 09-18-2015 at 06:04 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 10:03 AM
 
32,297 posts, read 26,153,180 times
Reputation: 18933
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
rbohm answered this, but I'm gonna elaborate some. It seems you're not a US citizen, and have a very weak knowledge of our history. There was a military , and had been one, when the Constitution was written. It was there before the Declaration of Independence. The colonies put out individual levies, to fund the Continental Army and Navy. These were regular troops, and militia either galvanized with them, as separate units, usually, or fought small unit actions, on their own. They could draw supplies from Continental Army stores, but supplied their own weapons and gear, for the most part That last part is the reason for the 2A.

"Well regulated" means personally equipped and armed. NOT dependent on the regular military, to supply arms. The intent of the 2A, is that the militia be able to operate independently. Not relying on the government or regular military for either arms or orders. Thus, the militia, We the People, needs to be "well regulated". So, our RIGHT to ,personal, individual, privately owned, firearms, "shall not be infringed"!!! This, SK the militia can call up, and form up, independently, free of reliance on the government, and not, directly , accountable to the government, either. Should the government be the threat.

What you are suggesting, in interpretation of our 2A, is the exact opposite of its intent. It doesn't take a Constitutional scholar to figure that out, either. One, simple, rhetorical, question, blows your take out of the water. Why, would the Framers, list one right, subject to government regulation, amidst all the rest, that are inaliable? Intending that this be a collective right, when all the rest are individual, and not subject to any government ...approval?

With the types of arms, in use today, its a good idea for we, the militia, to have at least one weapon, chambered in the round in a caliber currently in use by the military. That way, should the militia be galvanized with a regular military unit, ammunition can be procured for our weapons. During the Revolution, militia could obtain powder and flints from the Continentals, or take from the British.but shot could be problematic. A Pennsylvania Long Rifle did not use GBE same ball as a Brown Bess or Harper's Ferry, musket.

But I digress. Point is, the modern militia should bear being "well regulated" , in mind , and own appropriate arms, for the times. I know this doesn't fit your narrative (or rather whimsical musings), but, that the 2A, that's the militia, that's the RIGHT to be "well regulated". Not the infringement of government oversight.
to back up what you wrote, i posted this in another thread;

Quote:
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top