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.
Maybe they are absurd to some who haven't actually extended their thoughts beyond memorizing and parroting NRA-like lines.
The 2nd amendment has been quoted directly many times by advocates in this discussion.
As I read it, it does not limit the definition of "arms" to firearms.
I explained further in a past post.
If you really want to defend yourself and your family against everything from the common mugger to your own government (not my stated reason; Nomander explanied that the government should fear us) then why do it potentially out"armed"?
I had one person reply stating that residents can possess tanks. Thankfully they are not my neighbors.
I would have to research whether an armed tank is permissable per my HOA code.
Sometimes by expanding arguements you find flaws.
Some take a hard word-for-word interpretation of things. I'm just also taking a word-for-word interpretation.
I think this goverment will limit your choice of "arms".
And why do you allow the government to do so?
For the third time,
these are my ORIGINAL questions.
I have not seen one response directly answering the questions.
There have been many attempts to skirt the questions but no direct answers.
Its a ignorant question.
The person incarcerated broke the law and has no rights. There fore, they are at the mercy of the system.
If the SHTF, I would have to wonder ho many correctional officers would stand there post or tend to there family. Seems a few police officers left there post during Katrina.
I had one person reply stating that residents can possess tanks. Thankfully they are not my neighbors.I would have to research whether an armed tank is permissable per my HOA code.
The Governor of the Great State of California has a Tank - a Sherman Tank if I recall correctly.
And, I believe so does Jay Leno.
There are "Tanker" who have reunions with their own tanks.
And, let's not forget those who fly fighter aircraft - Chuck Yeager had a F4 Phantom. There are a whole bunch of people who own F14's (and other US fighter aircraft), MIG's of various models.
Then, there are those that own PT Boats -
Yep - lots of military weapons in civilian hands.
Heck - there's a whole group that own Bombers - B-17's, B-29's, B-24's etc!!
Maybe they are absurd to some who haven't actually extended their thoughts beyond memorizing and parroting NRA-like lines.
The 2nd amendment has been quoted directly many times by advocates in this discussion.
As I read it, it does not limit the definition of "arms" to firearms.
I explained further in a past post.
If you really want to defend yourself and your family against everything from the common mugger to your own government (not my stated reason; Nomander explanied that the government should fear us) then why do it potentially out"armed"?
I had one person reply stating that residents can possess tanks. Thankfully they are not my neighbors.
I would have to research whether an armed tank is permissable per my HOA code.
Sometimes by expanding arguements you find flaws.
Some take a hard word-for-word interpretation of things. I'm just also taking a word-for-word interpretation.
I think this goverment will limit your choice of "arms".
And why do you allow the government to do so?
Only flaws are your judgement.
Dont like the answers you get, move to Holland, I here its nice there.
The Governor of the Great State of California has a Tank - a Sherman Tank if I recall correctly.
And, I believe so does Jay Leno.
There are "Tanker" who have reunions with their own tanks.
And, let's not forget those who fly fighter aircraft - Chuck Yeager had a F4 Phantom. There are a whole bunch of people who own F14's (and other US fighter aircraft), MIG's of various models.
Then, there are those that own PT Boats -
Yep - lots of military weapons in civilian hands.
Heck - there's a whole group that own Bombers - B-17's, B-29's, B-24's etc!!
I know that I can easily purchase a Sherman tank, it will have to be "re imported" from a swiss dealer. I have to get special licenses to own and operate it and use $70,000 to purchase a tank. In Longmont Colorado it is still legal to drive tracked vehicles as long as they have rubber pads in the tracks. I know several people that have fully automatic weapons, (read a previous post concerning my .050 cal, AK-47, M-16 shooting experience.)
nuclear weapons are not a means of defense in a small scale, they are a means of obliterating. far cry from an arm that a normal citizen could handle.
BTW, I am not a member of the NRA. I know of their stance, but not there ideals. I am an American.
I notice the anti gunners here totally ignore my posts about the poll results showing how badly they outnumbered and my post with the link to the shooting in Israel. Truth hurts, doesn't it?
Can't wait 'till the Supreme Court renders it's finding on the Washington DC Case. If it goes the right way and finds that The Second Amendment indeed protects individual right to keep and bear arms just as it says, There goes all their arguments. And the Supreme court has never made a definitive statement either way as of yet on the Second Amendment as some anti's have hinted.
Maybe they are absurd to some who haven't actually extended their thoughts beyond memorizing and parroting NRA-like lines.
The 2nd amendment has been quoted directly many times by advocates in this discussion.
As I read it, it does not limit the definition of "arms" to firearms.
I explained further in a past post.
If you really want to defend yourself and your family against everything from the common mugger to your own government (not my stated reason; Nomander explanied that the government should fear us) then why do it potentially out"armed"?
I had one person reply stating that residents can possess tanks. Thankfully they are not my neighbors.
I would have to research whether an armed tank is permissable per my HOA code.
Sometimes by expanding arguements you find flaws.
Some take a hard word-for-word interpretation of things. I'm just also taking a word-for-word interpretation.
I think this goverment will limit your choice of "arms".
And why do you allow the government to do so?
If you look at the arguements of the time its obvious theuy meant small arms, as in long arms & handguns. But Congress also required militia companies to aquire field pieces, however they were more of a communal thing. People arent required to own cannons but neither were they forbidden to.
I had a neighbor that had tanks & halftracks. He was into it & restored them for resale. I never thought to ask if the guns were functional.
We, the people actually own everything the Govt posesses. We own air craft carriers & fighter jets, nuclear subs & ballistic missles. But you cant "bear" a sub. Their intent even lacking further investigation is very clear.
Your "Right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed" Its not limited to firearms, edged weapons & other hand held weapons are covered.
Actually, concerning the NRA, I think they have their heads up their butts. They just sat down with Sarah Brady & strengthened gun control.
You keep repeating this, what does it have to do with anything?
I was JUST trying to ask, WHAT do people think is a cause for all this crime?
Everyone talks about harsher sentences... BUT what's the cause?
Pretty much crime is a result of freedom & lack of participation of the people. 50 years ao you didn't have gangs of teenagers selling drugs on the corner because the people wouldn't tolerate it. I know its over simplified but spend some time thinking on it. You let them sell dope & look the other way. Another gang see's them & wants in. Now theres gangs shooting each other & looking to recruit in schools. Its not because of guns.
Its because theyre free to hang out on the corner & the "people" all think its someone elses job to stop them. I'm real sorry but if you set up shop on MY corner selling drugs I'm going to stop you. Period.
When others adopt a proactive stance crime will go down. Crime exists where its tolerated.
In my opinion, we should. We aren't ever going to get the guns out of the gangster's hands, but we can start a law that requires that you have a very small or no criminal record when you can own a gun...
Now, I know that there are things wrong with this...
I can hear some arguments with my claim above now...
"Well what if someone breaks into a previous criminal's home, and the previous criminal will have no way to defend his self since he does not have a gun... Then my option would be...
After being released from jail, you must not commit any crimes for three or maybe five years, and then you can qualify for gun ownership.
This may sound totally wrong and un-constitutional to some, or most, but with all this gun violence, are we just supposed to let criminals buy guns... with the school and mall shootings, what is America to do?
If I were a criminal and were going to break into your house and do you and your family harm, and to know that you had a gun/weapon, i'd pass you by. If EVERYONE had a gun there would be a lot less crime. i live in south georgia and about 95% of the people running around have a hand gun or a rifle in their reach.
Maybe they are absurd to some who haven't actually extended their thoughts beyond memorizing and parroting NRA-like lines.
The 2nd amendment has been quoted directly many times by advocates in this discussion.
As I read it, it does not limit the definition of "arms" to firearms.
I explained further in a past post.
If you really want to defend yourself and your family against everything from the common mugger to your own government (not my stated reason; Nomander explanied that the government should fear us) then why do it potentially out"armed"?
I had one person reply stating that residents can possess tanks. Thankfully they are not my neighbors.
I would have to research whether an armed tank is permissable per my HOA code.
Sometimes by expanding arguements you find flaws.
Some take a hard word-for-word interpretation of things. I'm just also taking a word-for-word interpretation.
I think this goverment will limit your choice of "arms".
And why do you allow the government to do so?
It doesn't matter how "you" read it. Fact isn't concerned with your interpetation. Your subjective view of the meaning is irrelevant. What matters is the context and that context can be determined by referencing the founding forefathers public statements and writings on the issue.
Do you know why I said you can only find these (made up) facts from the 1950's on? It is because most of the text books these days do circle referencing. That is, they are all very busy pointing how each one of them is telling the truth, yet none of them reference the original documents (in context) to even make their claim.
I have had a History professor reprimanded for giving me a poor grade on a paper concerning this exact subject. They referenced a text book that did not provide proper sourcing to its claims while I was sourcing the original document.
The fact is, we have a lot of people who think "feeling" about what the amendment means is a legitimate way to establish the truth. I am sorry to say, but that would be for those who are devious or the purposely ignorant. The facts exist on this very issue, but this issue isn't about facts. It is about politics and "feeling" your way through an issue. Its pure idiocy.
Edit:
We don't "allow" the government honestly to do these things. I guess you could say we do in a way, but the key is the following. We allow a lot of these violations to happen because we are attempting to use the system to which was designed to protect us from this very thing. Be sure though, there will come a point where we WILL NOT allow this to continue. It is just at this point, many feel it is not yet at the point of spilling blood over. It will however reach that point eventually. It seems some people can never stop oppressive actions until they are hanging from a noose. Sad as it is, it is a proven occurrence throughout history.
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.
