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.
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?
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.
Here's my solution: Everyone between 18 and 65 is required to be part of the militia. As part they get annual training and then are REQUIRED to carry a firearm, ready to respond at a moments notice.
How about the Natural Right to defend oneself from harm? Often assailants are bigger, stronger, are armed, and in multiple numbers. Don't we have a right to defend our lives, be safe, and live by defending ourselves?
I have some pretty crappy exes, had a gun held to my head and my house broken into.... all without a gun in my hand.
And honestly most guns used in home defense, are used on family members.
Huh? Let's break this down for you. If everyone who is not in the military is part of the 'unorganized' militia that means they are not organized. To be part of an 'organized' militia you have to be organized. So what makes them organized. A chain of command. A set of rule and regulations. So that would make them a well-regulated militia. The unorganized militia are not well regulated because they answer to no one. The closest thing we have in the US to a militia is the US Army reserves. They meet once a month and if necessary, go overseas when at war.
So your answer, is just spin, but makes no sense.
What's up with ya'll gun toting conservatives. Have you ever heard of a spectrum? Wanting to regulate WHAT KIND of gun doesn't mean banning all guns. All the mass shooting have been performed by AR-15s, guns that are semi-automatic and military like. Seems to me banning AR-15's wouldn't necessarily ban ALL guns. But of course by having an argument that pretends that people want to ban all guns, means you don't have to discuss limits and regulations for gun ownership. It's a way to skip the conversation and not get realistic.
The less guns legally registered, the less gun illegally distributed. Try it. It's worked for several countries, or you can just make stuff up, if it suits you.
"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.
Originally Posted by ozarknation
My dad gave me a Remington 870 as a gift when I was in College, and sold it. I don't need guns, I don't hunt. I just call 911 if I need the police.
Maybe in the 1700s, it made sense. To have a gun to protect your family. Today is not necessary. Our police departments are funded with tax dollars to buy the most modern equipment and guns available in the market to protect us.
Yeah, me too except last time I was put on freaking HOLD.
Time before that I waited a full 40 minutes before they showed up and this while an active fight was going on.
It generally takes at least 15 minutes for a police response in our suburban area so basically we're on our own just like in the 1700's you talked about.
Police are there to pick up the pieces and/or clean up the mess, take the winners to jail and the losers to the hospital or morgue.
911 does NOT exist to stop anything in process. That's up to the citizen. I don't know where people got the idea that 911 was anything other...
If you read Title 10, United States Code, you will learn at least two things:
1. There are two "militias" spelled out in the United States Code
2. those "militias" are the Organized Militia (National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia (everybody else).
IF you are a United States Citizen, by law you are a member of the Unorganized Militia, if you meet the age requirements.
That is the LAW!
If the National Guard is the 'regulated militia", why have we not heard a peep from them about this whole gun control issue? When it comes to a Govt trying to enact tyrannical laws, a regulated militia would definitely be one of the first groups I would want to hear from about this.
Children going to school, people going to concerts or to the mall or to work have the right to live (unalienable right found in the Declaration of Independence), which IMO is more important than anyone's antiquated right to own a gun. Life or a gun? It isn't that hard. We have reached the point where we need to view the issue in this way. The next mass shooting could be anywhere, take any number of people, and any of YOUR kids. We don't know. How could we?
The founders could not possibly have imagined the advancement in weapons, and how they would sometimes be used as they are today (mass shootings of innocent school kids, for one). If the founders could be alive today, know all we know, and have the chance to see what has happened and how guns have been used, especially lately, I'm not sure they would have written the Second Amendment as broadly as they did, if at all. Like people allege the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause has been misunderstood or misconstrued through the years, I think the 2nd Amendment has been equally expanded and twisted.
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?
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with police departments or law enforcement.
Anyone else find it ironic that the group of people who think the current presidential administration is likely to start rounding people up and executing or deporting them is by and large the same group of people who want to eliminate the one safeguard the framers of the Constitution gave us to keep that from happening?
If the National Guard is the 'regulated militia", why have we not heard a peep from them about this whole gun control issue? When it comes to a Govt trying to enact tyrannical laws, a regulated militia would definitely be one of the first groups I would want to hear from about this.
Because it is a politically "hot" issue, and the National Guard is subject to the same UCMJ as active duty personnel. They can not use their military position for political purposes!
Have you read Title 10 USC yet?
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.
