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.
But it's not just your right to own a gun that you stand to lose. Think about that.
If it ever gets to that point, people may begin to understand why the 2nd Amendment is just as important as the 1st or all the other amendments that constitute the "Bill of Rights" for that matter. If you are willing to forfeit one amendment for a false sense of security then you'll eventually forfeit them all. As each step fails to provide the security as promised, the erosion of the "Bill of Rights" will never stop. We'll be living in a police state ruled by statists and social elites with their "nanny state" mentality. Who's only desire is absolute power and control over every aspect of our lives.
There's a difference between assault weapons and their semi automatic counterparts. Assault weapons are selective fire where their semi automatic counterparts are not. The term "assault weapons" is a term conjured up by the media to gain public support to ban all semi automatic firearms that accept a detachable magazine. Once that is achieved they'll go after the rest. Shotguns will be labeled as "riot guns". After all nobody needs a "riot gun" unless you plan on attending or starting a riot. Bolt action rifles will be labeled as "sniper rifles". No one needs one of those unless they plan on being a sniper, like Charles Whitman or Lee Harvey Oswald for example. Handguns have already been labeled as "Saturday Night Specials" who's only purpose is to kill people. When it comes to banning guns and civilian disarmament the reasons for banning any particular type be relentless.
The day that the government decides to give up it's guns is the day when no one will ever need a gun. Another thing to think about. As long as there is evil in the world both foreign and domestic that's just never going to happen. I think that I'll keep my guns, thank you.
Oh by the way, thanks for your service.
The problem with the Liberal argument, fully automatic assault weapons are fully constitutional.
Part of the general term arms. It doesn't even have the wording, to limit the people to "small arms" or that is what would have been declared to the new government being formed and the 2nd amendment would have read, the right to keep & bear single fire small arms. It doesn't and no one can make it say so. Not even 9 politically appointed people in black robes.
unless you have the proper FFL, you cant own an M60 anyway, let alone anything that has a full auto option.
I cannot find that clause within the Constitution.
That would be a clear violation of the very text of the 2nd Amendment, and your individual right to never bow down to the collectives directives. It protects and enforces the consequences of telling anyone, not just government, NO.
How did the mighty US military do against the rural Jihadi fighters using old Russian weapons in Afghanistan?
Same thing with Vietnam, US thought it would be easy peezy, after all, its the US military! how wrong they were though!
Jihadi fighters have access to full auto weapons, heavier weapons than we do, and rpgs and other explosives Americans can't buy.
Same with Vietnam. They were equipped with military grade equipment by the Russians. I don't see US civilians getting their hands on the equal to a mig 17 back then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
I personally feel if enough people banded together, they could put up a pretty good fight and remove the govt from power if need be. I also feel, years down the road, anyone who took part would probably go down in history as brave patriots.
Banded together and did what? We're not remotely like the Vietnamese or the Jihadis. We're soft. We're too used to our couches and TVs. That's like comparing apples to oranges.
** Personally don't believe gun laws will change anything with regards to school shootings. It's the result of poor parenting and until they're held accountable will never change. At the same time, lets stop pretending the US civilians stand a chance in hell against the US military.
Jihadi fighters have access to full auto weapons, heavier weapons than we do, and rpgs and other explosives Americans can't buy.
Same with Vietnam. They were equipped with military grade equipment by the Russians. I don't see US civilians getting their hands on the equal to a mig 17 back then.
Banded together and did what? We're not remotely like the Vietnamese or the Jihadis. We're soft. We're too used to our couches and TVs. That's like comparing apples to oranges.
** Personally don't believe gun laws will change anything with regards to school shootings. It's the result of poor parenting and until they're held accountable will never change. At the same time, lets stop pretending the US civilians stand a chance in hell against the US military.
Its about peoples unwillingness to actually do anything about it too.
The constitution gives the people the right (and even the duty sometimes) to remove a govt from power, but have you ever seen anyone suggest that...considering how tyrannical it has become?!! Its like people whine and cry a little, but then just sit back and accept it, and go on about their lives.
I think alot of it has to do with people being too scared to take any kind of risk like this, they are too scared of possibly being arrested, loosing their job, income, family, etc. so they just 'go along to get along'
I also think 'the optics' of such a thing would be too much for alot of people today, think about it, removing a govt from power would look like mass domestic terrorism, it would be people in gun battles with local, state police, military, etc. it would be absolutely NUTS.
I cannot find that clause within the Constitution.
What exactly is your point? It was a document written in the 18th century. Funny how to some people, certain things are obvious... such as the 2nd Amendment giving you la carte blanche for anything up to nuclear weapons (and you'd make that argument too).
Yet, certain things weren't so obvious. We had to go out of our way with amendments to:
- end slavery
- all all men to vote
- allow women to vote
- remind everyone that they can still vote
We needed the Supreme Court to give the "obvious right" to same-sex people to have a legally recognized marriage.
We also needed the Supreme Court to give the "obvious right" for social integration.
I guess my point is... why is it that there's this blanket statement about the 2nd Amendment that apparently just applies to whatever people want it to be, yet it is like pulling teeth to get many other aspects of our Constitution recognized as "obvious."
To you, maybe it is obvious that the 2nd Amendment covers any and all powder-ignited projectiles. To the rest of the nation, it was probably obvious that "all men are created equal" yet apparently it isn't obvious enough.
Its about peoples unwillingness to actually do anything about it too.
The constitution gives the people the right (and even the duty sometimes) to remove a govt from power, but have you ever seen anyone suggest that...considering how tyrannical it has become?!! Its like people whine and cry a little, but then just sit back and accept it, and go on about their lives.
I think alot of it has to do with people being too scared to take any kind of risk like this, they are too scared of possibly being arrested, loosing their job, income, family, etc. so they just 'go along to get along'
I also think 'the optics' of such a thing would be too much for alot of people today, think about it, removing a govt from power would look like mass domestic terrorism, it would be people in gun battles with local, state police, military, etc. it would be absolutely NUTS.
We have the opportunity on a regular basis. It's called VOTING.
No matter how much we complain though, the number of people actually exercising that right is pathetic. On top of that, they don't research anything. They're too easily influenced by bs talking points.
If someone is complaining about the political state often my first question is "did you vote (whatever last chance was)?" If the answer is no, tell them to go home and look in the mirror and they'll find their first problem.
If people can't do a simple thing like vote, they're certainly not capable of any thing more.
and yeah. Today it is hard for people to take risk. A lot of people live paycheck to paycheck. A lot of people cannot afford to miss work, lose work, lose a job.
In 1789, the Framers decided more people would suffer and die if govt had ANY authority to restrict or take away guns, than if the govt were forbidden to restrict or ban any of them.
Most of the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution, and later added the Bill of Rights, were students of the history of government and the abuses it could inflict. And they knew that government after government had long records of disarming their own people, and then later inflicting serious abuse and oppression on them, sometimes even leading to mass murders of their own subjects.
Our own Revolutionary war started in 1775 at Concord and Lexington, Mass., when soldiers of the British government tried to confiscate privately-owned weapons of the colonists.
And even when we have an event where someone in our country grabs a gun and starts shooting, sometimes killing many innocent people, it remains a fact that there would be a lot MORE innocent people injured or dead if government had the power to take away or restrict our guns and other weapons. How many more potential muggers, rapists, and murderers would decide to commit their crimes if they were sure that nobody in the crowd could possibly have a gun of their own?
Today, far more such crimes are committed in so-called "gun free zone", where there are alws forbidding the carrying of guns in the area. Such laws protect the rapist or murderer from danger, of course, while disarming only the law-abiding.
And yet every time we have a shooting, whether it's in San Bernardino, Columbine High School, Georgia disco, Ft. Hood military base, or now Las Vegas, the same panic-stricken talking heads do their best to throw the baby out with the bath water. They demand we give our government the authority to restrict or ban some or all of our guns.
Now, as floods follow a hurricane, they are doing the same thing again. Don't these people ever learn? Have they ever even bothered examining the reasons why the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and BOR, decided unanimously to forbid all governments in the U.S. from infringing our right to own and carry guns? Despite their having just as much trouble with nutcases and guns then, as we do now?
If these shortsighted people get their way, we will see a lot more Americans oppressed, injured, and killed that we ever have outside of outright war. And if other governments' actions are anything to go by, our government could yet exceed even that total, if they get even a little authority. Because history also demonstrates that if you give them an inch they will eventually take a mile.
In 1776 and 1789, ALL firearms were "military style weapons".
THINK about that!
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.
