Is the Second Amendment necessary? (Somali, abuse, income, senator)

[mortpes]

We do have police etc. and yet crime and violent crime is an every day occurance. Yes it is necessary because there are many among us that will not defend themselves and do not approve of others defending themselves.

[staywarm2]

Originally Posted by mortpes

We do have police etc. and yet crime and violent crime is an every day occurance. Yes it is necessary because there are many among us that will not defend themselves and do not approve of others defending themselves.

How about CANNOT defend themselves. Do you seriously think every child or old person should carry a gun?? Give me a break... Besides, unless someone is a very good shot, I don't want them "defending" the rest of us in a crowded situation. They may miss the bad guy and kill an innocent person or persons with their "defense."

[High_Plains_Retired]

Originally Posted by ozarknation

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?

That's an extremely shorted sighted question. The right to bear arms is absolutely necessary where I have only seen a single law enforcement official in the 8 years I've owned this farm. Unfortunately that was several hours after my call to the Sheriff's office due to my front door having been kicked down by burglars. We have a single deputy who is available each night to patrol the over 1000 square miles of this county so police protection is not an option out here.

But the 2nd amendment was not given to us to add protection from petty burglaries and thieves. The framers of the Constitution knew from personal experience that governments could very quickly become powerfully corrupt and turn against its own citizens. These days most Americans are informed and logical enough to realize that the early actions of such a corrupted government would likely be to consolidate its power by first disarming its citizens.

The 2nd amendment was necessary when the government of our mother country became corrupted and only a hand full of Americans were loyal to that corruption. It is even more important now that numerous nations are our sworn enemy and seemingly half of our own citizens seem to want to help them.

I might only add that cats were once thought to be the cause of the black plague in Europe when it was cats who controlled the actual cause.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by ozarknation

9-11 was a "foreign attack"
as per the second amendment, you gun owners and 2nd amendment supporters are supposed to protect us from a foreign attack.
Instead, you ran to WalMart to buy food and water, just like me.

Actually, the 2nd exists to protect us from tyranny, which would be our own government. The military protects us from foreign attack.

[roseba]

Originally Posted by rso092

Well regulated isn't referring to laws and regulations; it refers to well trained.

Yes, and Joe and Bob are not well trained. It's interesting that you keep missing the point.

Moreover, the 2nd amendment clearly refers to individual rights unconnected to any government service, as written by the founding fathers who actually wrote the constitution. If that's not good enough for you, the Supreme Court has ruled for an individual right as well.

You mean the original wording:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

Notice there is a but.

or the second draft.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

hmmmm, it's saying we won't force you to bear arms due to your religious conviction

And the final

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You see, there is an evolution here. It wants a person who is well trained in a militia the right to do this; and if they don't want to, due to religious reasons, they don't have to.

What do you think gives you any right to say what another can or cannot buy, provided said thing is being used responsibly?

And obviously it is not being used responsibly. Furthemore, Amendments change due to changing times.
I expanded the right to vote with both 13th and 19th Amendments. We granted the vote to former slaves in the 15th amendment. We instituted an income tax with the 16th. We abolished and then repealed the alcohol in the 18th and 21st. Laws change. People change. Times change. Laws are not written in stone and when necessary get clarified. Even if the intent of the founders were what some say it was, (and that's debatable), I'm not sure the opinion of men that died 200 years ago is relevant. Not to mention that even amongst living men, they change their mind when new information is brought to them.

If I have one AR15, or a closet full of them, why do you care? I'm not out shooting people with them, and unless I do, it has no impact whatsoever on you.

Really? People are talking about arming teachers. They are talking about filling schools with heavy security. You damn skippy that it effects me. I have a child in school. It's not how I want her raised. It infringes on MY LIBERTY to raise my child in an environment that is loving and nurturing. Why should she go to school in a lockdown environment because a bunch of adolescent boys like their toys... which is what this really is.

Don't tell me what I can or can't do.

I hear you. Your rights don't extend to overstepping onto my rights. You are stepping on my rights to live in peace and security because if I have to look over my shoulder and worry about the next person who needs to be on meds, who is undiagnosed and was able to buy an AR-15 with a temporary drivers license with a 5 minute identity check... that's an infringement of my right to life and liberty and freedom from fear. PS: They have more restrictions on importing cheese.

[roseba]

Originally Posted by Redraven

"ALL the mass shootings have been performed by Ar-15s..."?
What about the Navy yard shooter. IIRC, he used a shotgun. One that he had just purchased, after passing the Federally mandated Background Check.
What about the Fort Hood shooter? I think he used a semi auto pistol.
Seems to me there were others where no AR-15 was anywhere in sight, other than those carried by law enforcement personnel.
Yes, being realistic is an admirable trait. Perhaps you should try it!
Right after you actually READ Title 10, United States Code. You might also want to read your state Constitution.

Reading is fundamental and interpretation is subjective. Just because your interpretation is preferred to you, doesn't mean that someone else is ignorant.

[roseba]

Maryland's ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.

In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment.

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who led the push for the law in 2013 as a state senator, said it's "unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment."

...
But Elizabeth Banach, executive director of Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, said the decision is "overwhelming proof that reasonable measures to prevent gun violence are constitutional."

"Maryland's law needs to become a national model of evidence-based policies that will reduce gun violence," Banach wrote in a statement.

...
"Both before and after Newtown, similar military-style rifles and detachable magazines have been used to perpetrate mass shootings in places whose names have become synonymous with the slaughters that occurred there," King wrote.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-rules-n724106

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by ozarknation

9-11 was a "foreign attack"
as per the second amendment, you gun owners and 2nd amendment supporters are supposed to protect us from a foreign attack.
Instead, you ran to WalMart to buy food and water, just like me.

It was a surprise attack, in case you didn't know.

Originally Posted by rstevens62

If the National Guard is the 'regulated militia", why have we not heard a peep from them about this whole gun control issue?

The National Guard is effectively an arm of the federal army.

Originally Posted by ozarknation

To everyone supporting the 2nd Amendment, here is my main question:
Why you didn't march to Washington DC with your guns and rifles in order to protect Bush Junior and Cheney during the 9-11 attacks?

There are US military units in Washington DC, which had the situation under control.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Armed security forces patrol military bases, whether they are Army or Marine Military Police, Air Force Security Police or civilian contractors.

So, the idiot thinks someone can lob a hand-grenade more than 100 meters?

Grenades are only effective in close combat.

Only megalomaniacs with delusions of grandeur would engage a superior force in close combat. In a revolution or civil war brought about by a constitutional crisis or suspension of civil liberties, you're not going to see rebel forces going toe-to-toe with government troops in combat.

While you're sitting in the dark twiddling your thumbs, because you can't go to work, since there's no electricity and no communications, rebel forces will continue to destroy the infrastructure, while conducting raids and ambushes, and luring government troops into urban areas, where they are easier to repel or defeat on a piece-meal basis. And don't discount the potential for National Guard units to defect.

Originally Posted by roseba

So what you are basically saying, is that civilians haven't a chance, even with weapons... which means, they shouldn't have them available to be misused

I don't know how you could possibly draw that conclusion.

People like you are quick to point out the US military's "failure" in Afghanistan, and yet you dismiss the possibility of the same occurring here in the US.

The damage wrought here in the US would be far greater than in Afghanistan.

[ozarknation]

Originally Posted by Mircea

There are US military units in Washington DC, which had the situation under control.

Oh, but you were supposed to march to Washington DC with your guns and rifles, to show your support to Bush Junior and Cheney.