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.
Yes. If you want to know what the founding fathers had in mind, they literally wrote volumes about it. Basically, the country can never be overthrown by an invading force, or an internal force, if each citizen is armed.
But that concept is a prehistoric concept. It belongs to the 15th Century.
Today we have the National Guard, Army, Air Force and Navy.
Do you think million of citizens will march to Washington DC armed with guns and rifles to defend the White House? or to overthrow the President?
I'm a Libertarian so I'm all for maximum liberty... as long as it DOESN'T infringe on someone else's liberties.
When someone shoots up an entire school with a human killing machine, those kids, yup... their liberties were infringed upon without question. The Right to Life guaranteed to them in the Constitution was taken that day. It's complete bulls*t and if I was one of the family members I'd be livid, especially seeing how much the FBI knew.
What I think is that there should be restrictions, just like there are restrictions on the First Amendment. It's not an absolute power, it's open to interpretation just like the rest of our rights. Background checks, restrictions on felons and the severely mentally ill, a reinstating of the Assault Weapons Ban.
We can still all keep our guns as responsible, sane, reasonably law-abiding Americans. Our rights are protected and the country goes on just fine, except much safer.
And here is a post where a libertarian and a liberal can pretty much agree. All such agreement and compromise requires is that neither side thinks they have to have 100% of what they want. That there's a middle ground.
I'm a Libertarian so I'm all for maximum liberty... as long as it DOESN'T infringe on someone else's liberties.
When someone shoots up an entire school with a human killing machine, those kids, yup... their liberties were infringed upon without question. The Right to Life guaranteed to them in the Constitution was taken that day. It's complete bulls*t and if I was one of the family members I'd be livid, especially seeing how much the FBI knew.
What I think is that there should be restrictions, just like there are restrictions on the First Amendment. It's not an absolute power, it's open to interpretation just like the rest of our rights. Background checks, restrictions on felons and the severely mentally ill, a reinstating of the Assault Weapons Ban.
We can still all keep our guns as responsible, sane, reasonably law-abiding Americans. Our rights are protected and the country goes on just fine, except much safer.
Common sense restrictions, truly sensible ones are fine. Not just fine, but desired. I too lean libertarian, but dont have a problem with measures to keep firearms out of the hands of those that would do harm. But we must tread carefully with those measures. Emotional responses to bad things tend to bring knee jerk reactions that in themselves have bad consequence.
A regulatory example from me. I think bump stocks are stupid. They dont have any legitimate use, other than throwing a lot of expensive bullets downrange, inaccurately (unless somebody can convince me otherwise). I would not be against those things being carefully abolished.
Diane Feinstein, the past her prime, goofy California legislator, recently lofted the idea of any new gun sales, the age being lifted to 21, vice 18. As much as I dislike her, I personally dont have a problem with her proposal, since many young people have a maturity "blossom" in that range, and are likely more prone to treat a firearm seriously at 21. I trained a few of them in the military, and raised a couple into adulthood, so I have some sense of reference.
But truly "common sense" restrictions to the 2nd amendment seem to be far and few between, and most are reactionary responses based on emotion.
Last edited by snebarekim; 02-18-2018 at 09:18 PM..
This is nothing new the first regulation of firearms came about 84 years ago.
Did you know in the United States that you can actually own a fully automatic working 50 caliber machine gun if you get the tax stamp for it?
The National Firearms Act (NFA) enacted in 1934, imposes a tax on the transfer and manufacturing of certain firearms, and mandates registration of those firearms. Later amended in 1968, Title II of the Gun Control Act (GCA) removed the requirement for possessors of unregistered firearms to register if it was already possessed by the person. In order to legally acquire NFA firearms you must get approval by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) of a registered weapon.
I am thinking we need to expand the NFA to include semi-automatic weapons which would include semi-automatic handguns.
Revolvers and bolt action rifles would be exempt.
I was in Vietnam and for a year I carried an automatic M16 and to tell you the truth I have a problem when somebody feels that they need this weapon for hunting. .
I have never seen anyone hunt with an automatic weapon.
This whole idea of an armed citizenry rising up in righteous indignation against a tyrannical government, is emotionally uplifting and grand. But would it work in practice?
Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that a tyrannical "leader" seizes control of the federal government. Checks-and-balances are bypassed. This "leader" promises to the military and to federal law-enforcement agencies a piece of the bounty. In exchange, every member of said organization abrogates any fealty to the Constitution, and instead swears personal allegiance to the leader.
Meanwhile, the citizenry is aghast. Everyone sets aside their differences, and joins forces... white, black, Hispanic, whatever... rural, suburban, urban; old, young, and anyone in between; recent immigrants, and people who trace their ancestry to the Mayflower; the Coasts and the Heartland... the North and the South... young men festooned with tattoos and with shaven heads, old men with ponytails... housewives, feminists, LBGT, Evangelicals, atheists, home-schoolers, college professors, the unemployed, businessmen, billionaires and paupers... everyone unites, taking up arms.
What would happen? 328 million civilians against perhaps 2 million, ahem, non-civilians. What is going to happen? What will your 30-06 or your AR-15 or even your 0.50-BMG do against a shower of ICBMs?
I'm all in favor of watchful, resourceful civilians keeping the government sane and honest. But how, other than strictly by political means, would this exactly go about happening?
And here is a post where a libertarian and a liberal can pretty much agree. All such agreement and compromise requires is that neither side thinks they have to have 100% of what they want. That there's a middle ground.
I too agree. There is a middle ground, and the emotion and hyperbole needs to be left out of it. People also need to be more knowledgeable, and make decisions related to facts.
This whole idea of an armed citizenry rising up in righteous indignation against a tyrannical government, is emotionally uplifting and grand. But would it work in practice?
Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that a tyrannical "leader" seizes control of the federal government. Checks-and-balances are bypassed. This "leader" promises to the military and to federal law-enforcement agencies a piece of the bounty. In exchange, every member of said organization abrogates any fealty to the Constitution, and instead swears personal allegiance to the leader.
Meanwhile, the citizenry is aghast. Everyone sets aside their differences, and joins forces... white, black, Hispanic, whatever... rural, suburban, urban; old, young, and anyone in between; recent immigrants, and people who trace their ancestry to the Mayflower; the Coasts and the Heartland... the North and the South... young men festooned with tattoos and with shaven heads, old men with ponytails... housewives, feminists, LBGT, Evangelicals, atheists, home-schoolers, college professors, the unemployed, businessmen, billionaires and paupers... everyone unites, taking up arms.
What would happen? 328 million civilians against perhaps 2 million, ahem, non-civilians. What is going to happen? What will your 30-06 or your AR-15 or even your 0.50-BMG do against a shower of ICBMs?
I'm all in favor of watchful, resourceful civilians keeping the government sane and honest. But how, other than strictly by political means, would this exactly go about happening?
You win. If the govt decides to shower us with ICBM's (you know, in the same country they and their families live in), the 2nd amendment is not necessary.
It was created in the 1700s, then cities and towns didn't have Police Departments or Law Enforcement.
Is the right to own weapons necessary any longer?
Yes.
I have gotten used to what little freedoms we have left.
What purpose would it serve to deny me the right to own a gun?
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.
