Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-29-2012, 10:56 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,096,716 times
Reputation: 4270

Advertisements

I'm surprised that no one has even suggested a minimum age for owning or using a firearm. I honestly thought that would be a common sense

Another question:

If you think that there should be no limitations or regulations on your RTBA, how do you feel about current limitations on rights guaranteed by the First Amendment?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-29-2012, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,096,716 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
That fails because that is not what the 2nd Amendment says.

In plain ordinary English, what the 2nd Amendment says is that the federal government is not allowed to make any laws with respect to firearms. Accordingly, the BATF is an illegal entity and has no jurisdiction except in those areas that are exclusively under federal control. Once such area that is exclusively under federal control is Guantanamo.

The several States are the only lawful and constitutional authorities permitted to make any laws regarding weapons, since it is the several States that are constitutionally charged with the task of regulating militias, and not the federal government.

Positioning....

Mircea
I don't see how what you wrote is relevant to what I wrote. Fed or State gov't in this context is irrelevant b/c we're talking about the right itself, not whose jurisdiction their regulation falls under.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 11:15 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,166,396 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
That isn't how it works, but even if it did, so what? I will surely convey that idea of yours to one of the greatest atheists among my friends, who was raised Catholic. It will be all in fun though.


you are correct, I was raised catholic and just consider myself christian as opposed to being of a forced upon religion by society.

repped you too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 11:19 AM
 
14,932 posts, read 8,549,528 times
Reputation: 7357
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
NONSENSE!

If your government chooses to run amock with your rights (it already has for decades and you haven't taken up arms yet, but I digress) what do you propose to do about it.

You probaly haven't exchanged ten words with your nearest neighbour in the last year but suddenly you alone or in a loose collection of nutbars is going to effectively counter your entire military complex from top to bottom with your nickle plated, 45 ACP, Wilson Combat?
That is a significant point you're making ... which is why honest, law abiding Americans who also possess a measure of good sense oppose these various "restrictions" constantly being pushed which want to reduce and downgrade the the list of weapons deemed legal for public ownership, as compared to others not so sensible who consider them "nutbars".

But to more thoroughly answer your question, even in the declaration of independence, Thomas Jefferson highlighted the fact that the people in general would suffer a great deal of tyranny before resorting to throwing off government. So it's not a situation where the People wish to engage violence ... quite to the contrary ... government seems to be the most frequent aggressor in that regard.

Nevertheless, every human being has the right of self defense, when their lives are in jeopardy, regardless of how some Pansy Arsed liberal feels about the matter ... it's a right that doesn't require your permission or approval. Yet, if you agree that people indeed have the right of self defense, then it only makes sense that one should strive to equip themselves as best they can, appropriate for the task. It's hardly supportive of such a right to self defense when you agree to relegate the people to ownership of only vastly inferior firepower to that which they might likely be confronted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
You got an F-15 in your garage to challenge air superiority, Bradley hidden in the bush somewhere to go up against those National Guardsmen sent into your neighbourhood in their Coyotes. with 20 mil's?
Hyperbole. The fact that the US Military is more adequately armed than the populace is no reason to support tipping the imbalance further in the wrong direction by stripping them of the most modern and effective light arms. The fact is, the US Military has superior firepower to that of any nation on earth, but raw numbers still count. This has been adequately highlighted by the challenges posed by countries the size of New Jersey, with fighters equipped only with light arms, such as AK47's, with a few rocket launcher styled weapons.

Certainly, no one in their right minds would "desire" such a confrontation, but if the only alternative is to roll over and submit ... and be shipped off to death camps such that the Jews of Nazi Germany suffered, or the Gulags of Stalin's USSR .... well, there isn't much choice in the eyes of men with dignity and courage. They will protect and defend their families as best they can, even if the odds are stacked heavily against them. Because that's what men are here for ... that's our purpose ... to provide for and protect our wives and children from bad people, regardless of who they are. Cowards cower.

After all, we're not talking about a protest over too much tax on tea ... we're talking about the defense of one's life, and the lives of their loved ones.

Don't dismiss that willpower too casually. The mighty forces of evil don't, which is why their efforts to disarm the pubic never tires.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
C'mon here; the second amendment was crafted when there were no weapons available to any standing army other than the SAME weapons available to private citizens.
That does seem to be the popular manta today ... that old antiquated document, and those old antiquated ideas of the 18th century just don't apply anymore, right? WRONG. The concepts of tyranny and liberty ... and the right of self defense, and the duty to defend your family hasn't changed AT ALL. The one thing those old stupid men did anticipate quite accurately is the fact that at some point we would likely face a similar tyranny to that which they threw off. That's why they put the 2nd Amendment there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
Your founding fathers could not possibly have foreseen the development of weapons far outstripping the ability of the private citizen to form effective militias to counter a government gone postal.
"Our Founding Fathers"? Are they not yours too? Or is your founding father Karl Marx?

The founding fathers couldn't have anticipated a lot of developments, such as the level of stupidity, servile attitude, and cowardice of the American male today, and that poses a far greater challenge than the imbalance of firepower.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
Let's strip this argument down to it's most relevant part for todays reality, you don't adhere to your 2nd rights because of your gov't. You cling to them for reason's of sport, ego and self defence only and the latter is why? Because your fellow citizens are all armed to the teeth and they're not all nice people like yourself!
News flash Pal .... not everyone thinks like you do ....moreover, just the Hunters of the north eastern US constitute the third largest army in the world, dwarfing places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

And history shows that you have far more to fear from government than you do your "armed to the teeth" neighbors, who might just be your last line of defense for your extremely visible soft under belly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
Good Grief! A whole country feeling the need to carry guns to defend themselves against each other.
You have no clue of how dangerous people can be when severe crisis strikes. Just look at the moronic behavior of certain degenerates and how they'll trample each other just for a $10 toaster at WalMart on Black Friday. You just wait to see how they and many more will behave in a total collapse of the financial system, when they are hungry and no food in sight!! Picture 1000 New Orleans/Katrina events happening simultaneously across the country, with Law Enforcement thoroughly illequiped to handle that level of unrest.

Go ahead ... dial 911. Then place your head between your legs, and kiss it goodbye, because all the men will be occupied protecting their families, leaving the only one's left to save you ... clutching their telephones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 11:19 AM
 
Location: SWUS
5,419 posts, read 9,177,729 times
Reputation: 5850
I wonder if this was inspired by the tragedy in Ohio yesterday? Let no tragedy go unused.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 11:23 AM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,166,396 times
Reputation: 5239
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanJP View Post
I wonder if this was inspired by the tragedy in Ohio yesterday? Let no tragedy go unused.

why not, cons did it yesterday in another thread, now it looks like dems are doing it with this thread. the more things change, the more they stay the same.

welcome to the democrat and republican parties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 11:28 AM
 
14,932 posts, read 8,549,528 times
Reputation: 7357
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
The least you should know when making absurd arguments is that Barry Soetoro would be a Christian moniker. Not "Barack" (or "Barak" in Hebrew). Never mind that this idea that calling him Barack Hussein makes one look smart, is rather amusing in itself. (Hint to those folks: I've met Christians in other countries with that middle name... doesn't make them Muslim or Christian).
It was obviously a failed attempt at S A R C A S M.

Nothing about Barack, or Hussein, or Obama remotely reminds one of a Christian name, nor a name anyone could have fathomed would ever be in the White House.

Just another sign of the times .... just a measure of how close we are to the finish line, in our race to the bottom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Orange County, CA
3,727 posts, read 6,208,730 times
Reputation: 4257
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
C'mon here; the second amendment was crafted when there were no weapons available to any standing army other than the SAME weapons available to private citizens.

Your founding fathers could not possibly have foreseen the development of weapons far outstripping the ability of the private citizen to form effective militias to counter a government gone postal.
This assumes a strictly military response to a local uprising; a bunch of guys armed with bolt action rifles and shotguns get easily crushed by a nearby Army or Marine Corp unit. Of course they would, but the situation is far more complex. In either a total breakdown of society or a large scale insurrection the military will splinter and disolve into different factions. Disipline and order will vanish. Many will simply leave their posts to return home and defend their families, often bringing their weapons with them. Others will join the insurrection. Of those that remain, many will refuse to take the field against fellow Americans, or if they do, refuse to fire on their fellow citizens. Every civil war in history has had this happen, only small localized violence by extremist groups has kept a nation's armed forces united and intact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 12:07 PM
 
4 posts, read 14,723 times
Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
NONSENSE!

If your government chooses to run amock with your rights (it already has for decades and you haven't taken up arms yet, but I digress) what do you propose to do about it.

You probaly haven't exchanged ten words with your nearest neighbour in the last year but suddenly you alone or in a loose collection of nutbars is going to effectively counter your entire military complex from top to bottom with your nickle plated, 45 ACP, Wilson Combat? So, our fathers, sons, brothers, moms, sisters, daughters are going to attack us? Thats who serves in the military my friend. When I was in there wasn't a real big gaggle of liberals or their children serving beside me. What you antis don't get is the fact that gun rights advocates don't fear the military, precisely because it is a majority of themselves and their families serving.

You got an F-15 in your garage to challenge air superiority, Bradley hidden in the bush somewhere to go up against those National Guardsmen sent into your neighbourhood in their Coyotes. with 20 mil's? They will have to send someone else in this neck of the woods. The Guardsmen I know would have a serious problem following orders to turn their firepower on their neighbors. Liberals always expect someone else to do their dirty work for them. To think they can get the military, who they usually despise, to turn on their own communities is the height of idiocy.

C'mon here; the second amendment was crafted when there were no weapons available to any standing army other than the SAME weapons available to private citizens. Whats your point? The first amendment was crafted when there wasn't a computer or cell phone to be found, should we start treating those like you would guns and the second amendment?

Your founding fathers could not possibly have foreseen the development of weapons far outstripping the ability of the private citizen to form effective militias to counter a government gone postal.

Let's strip this argument down to it's most relevant part for todays reality, you don't adhere to your 2nd rights because of your gov't. You cling to them for reason's of sport, ego and self defence only and the latter is why? Because your fellow citizens are all armed to the teeth and they're not all nice people like yourself! Yes, lets strip this argument down. Just who exactly do you think will take up arms to force your vision of Utopia on the section of citizenry that wants nothing to do with it?

Good Grief! A whole country feeling the need to carry guns to defend themselves against each other.
Good Grief is certainly right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-29-2012, 12:07 PM
 
Location: S.W.PA
1,360 posts, read 2,944,325 times
Reputation: 1047
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
If guns were a great thing to have, people and businesses would have no issue allowing others to carry around. Yet, we see businesses and people, not being comfortable with the idea of strangers with guns.

IMO, the very premise of "gun rights" is based on false ground. The idea is probably implemented best in Switzerland, where people are expected to defend their country.

Having said that, this thread ain't about that either, but about what dictates the limits, the definition of arms? There is nothing in the US Constitution about it.
Well, then the sky's the limit per the constitution, however that also doesn't restrict the government (fed. or local) from seperately defining what "well armed" should or should not mean. This is already the case- I believe fully automatic weapons are prohibited, for example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top