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 12-23-2012, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,866 posts, read 24,099,797 times
Reputation: 15134

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
The Framers struggled with the notion of having an Army at all. Instead, they preferred a "citizen's militia". The Second Amendment states that "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It doesn't sound like the Framers were contemplating citizens overthrowing their government here. What it sounds like is that they realized in order to have a militia to protect the state, citizens would have to have some right to bear arms. That's why its there. That's what it means. In context, it makes sense.
Actually, it doesn't.

If you're correct, then why is the word "free" in there? Why is it "...necessary to the security of a free state"? Why isn't it "...necessary to the security of the state"?

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this. Not only is the language clear, but the words were carefully chosen, and protecting our freedoms from any tyrannical government - whether it be foreign or domestic - that might wish to encroach upon them is exactly why the 2nd is in the Bill of Rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-23-2012, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
11,222 posts, read 16,422,155 times
Reputation: 13536
^^^Interesting, Glenfield. I've never heard about that, thanks for the info. Not to be disrespectful, but I'd like to think the National Guard arn't, for lack of a better term at the moment, the "weekend warriors" of the past. I know they've always been deployed over the last century, but a decade of rotations thru the middle east has probably taught the current NG more restraint and professionalism, and understand just how precious the peoples rights truly are. I believe the vast majority of Troops are what they are, for the love of their country, because they truly believe in the fight for freedom, and are not essentially mercenaries, just there for the paycheck. Nor are they mindless automatons.

They have a stake in what happpens to peoples liberties & rights. It's not like they could go home after the conflict, and expect to continue living the life they lead before, while everyone else suffers. If they allowed a tyrannical government to strip away the rights and freedoms of the people they are defending the government from, they only harm their friends, families, and themselves. I think you'd sooner see them defect than participate in the destruction of the nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2012, 07:50 PM
 
7,072 posts, read 9,612,877 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back to NE View Post
But can folks with guns compete against the US Military? Of course not, so this part of the 2nd amendment is obsolete.

The North Vietnamese did in the 1960s. How about the Somali rebels who shot down US Blackhawk helicopters in the 1990s?

Where was the mighty US military when American hostages were being held in Iran, or when planes were crashing into the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11?

Last edited by ram2; 12-23-2012 at 08:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2012, 11:04 PM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,259,194 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
You know, this whole argument that we need guns to protect us from our own government is an interesting insight into many people. If you don't know much about psychology than I'd encourage you to look up the meaning of "paranoid" and "paranoia". A few questions for people who believe this is a legitimate reason to have guns:

1. When was the last time our government was a dictatorship?
2. Who is the last President that tried to confiscate your gun or guns?
3. Who elects the people who run our government?
4. Who has the power to vote against and defeat any legislator, congressman, governor, or president in our country?
5. The Supreme Court of what country has upheld a personal right to bear arms?

I actually own a couple of rifles. My purpose for owning them is that target shooting is a hobby of mine. I can also see someone in some areas of the country wanting to own a gun as protection against prowlers or intruders. The person I'm most sympathetic with in this respect would be the owner of a convenience or service station which is not infrequently robbed.

6. The idea that you need guns to protect yourself from our government here in the United States is so embarrassingly paranoid that its not worthy of discussion by intelligent rational people.

Sorry, if any of you draw conclusions about yourselves based on this. There's a saying in life that "if the shoe fits than....."
1. Does it have to be our government, a current government, or any government? Russia, Turkey, Cambodia, China, and Germany all have a history of restricting gun rights and most governments have a history of oppression. And technically, Lincoln was in all but name a dictator. Fortunately, the war turned out ok and he relinquished power.
2. My government never has, but then again I'm not a Russian or German Jew.
3. Presumably it us, but Hitler was elected as well.
4. You're assuming that politicians listen to regular people and that one vote can make a difference.
5. The constitution and supreme court have been set aside in the past.
6. Need is the wrong word. The only reason the 2nd amendment is even in the constitution in the first place is to defend against any tyranny that might wish to establish itself. Hunting and self defense rights were assumed at the time of writing. Guns help protect the weak from predators that might wish them harm.

What's that old saying "democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on dinner liberty is an armed lamb contesting the decision. I think the meaning ties into the idea that it is better to have a government scared of its citizens than to have citizens scared of the government.

I don't think the government is going to one day become just like china. However, those that do think so have history on their side and history is a great teacher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 05:55 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,913,530 times
Reputation: 3767
Default Obsolete huh? Rather, it's your thinking that's suffering. Read on and weep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Back to NE View Post
But can folks with guns compete against the US Military? Of course not, so this part of the 2nd amendment is obsolete.
We don't have to compete. We only have to continuously harass, cause perpetual mayhem and so on. This guerilla warfare technique has been proven time and again: it chased the Russians out of Afghanistan. It is harassing the hell out of our über-tech-equipped boys there now...

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.48133...94970&pid=15.1

and...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_w1Te9kELSl...DTN%2BNEWS.jpg

or...

http://www.armyrecognition.com/image...e_view_001.jpg

And yet, the Taliban keeps killing such stuff off until we had to design and build a few hundred of these Buffalo transporters, which still don't provide complete protection...

http://www.defpro.com/data/gfx/news/...72a45d_big.jpg

...and the IED/Molotov cocktail techniques seem to be more than successful.

Two things:

1) a poll of our US NatGuard kids a few decades back indicated they would NOT willingly take up arms against any righteous citizenry to confiscate anything or invoke unfair martial laws.

2) While I was in the Canadian Army in the late '60s, we had some training on managing "cultural uprisings" within Canada, and the question came up about the limited amount of ammo any Canuck soldier would ever be issued while in Canada.

The answer was a bit shocking: one of the key roles as assigned by the senior Canadian military was simply to provide active crowd/insurgent suppression through the simple threat of arms, should the government up there make decisions they felt to be in the best traditions [as in "We know best!"] of rampant Kanadian socialism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tablemtn View Post
No; if anything, it probably makes that task easier. The president just has to swing a large group of people to his side and have them act as his own personal militia. Sort of like what Saddam did in Iraq.
The first thing that would happen is that those stumble-bum Barama-Boy Peace Defense Corps urbanistás would pretty much distinguish themselves as extremely p[s$-poooh-R-shotz, while those of us who therefore had to take reasonable measures to defend ourselves with our old M1As, ARs, AKs, pump shotguns, and yeah, some über-long range Barretts, would make quick work of their socialist resolve, not to mention their materiels capabilities.

So keep your head low if you come door-thumping for our 2A-guaranteed firearms, n'KAY? Just a fair and polite warning to be sure. Do NOT assume that some wack-job micro-majority of totally urban voters, with, say, some "vast" 5%+ authority, will stand you in good stead with the real majority.

Here: FYI: Try these on if you feel that Jefferson, Washington et al meant something else:

http://en.proverbia.net/citastema.asp?tematica=492

It's all quite clear to any thinking individual, and if any of you really do not like our Constitution, you, like Piers Monkey-Mind Morgan [restrict yourself to The X-Factor and grading singers, Piers!], who is not not even a US citizen, can just hop back on the next eastern-bound tramp streamer. Heck: perhaps we'll even pay their passage. In steerage of course...

(One does wonder if Piers has any armed body guards at his side. Perhaps we should remove such protections from him? )

Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss View Post
No.

But something tells me that if politicians ever did something so horrific that it was causing an armed revolt, the military would almost certainly side with the people. But I hope we never have to find out.
And yet, I'm thinking that with a simple potential POTUS Executive Order pending early January, we may well have to stand out on Main Street with a copy of the 2A in our cold fingers. I know I'll be there!

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnatomicflux View Post
I've been thinking this for a very, very long time. I believe in the right to bear arms, but I simply cannot imagine a time where the US or Canadian armed forces would actually side with their governments against the citizens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn™
(See my No. Two post note above, Magna. It never happened, but there was a rather famous case of the RCMP attacking innocent and unarmed students at UBC in Vancouver, and beating many of them. Hmmm. wonder if they'd been that willing if a few legally armed citizens had been there with a few Canuck style (M4-C1A or FNCAL) held up? The APEC report is quite damning in fact! But remember: Canucks are historically indifferent to thoughts about their own freedoms, and are all pretty much trusting of their government.

(Old joke: How do you get 100 Canadians to get out of the swimming pool? simple: you yell: "Everyone out of the pool!")

APEC - Commission Interim Report
During riots, and other fairly minor (in the grand scheme of things) occurances, they would do their duty to a point, but would not fire unless fired at. Even then, they'd just hunker down until a soldier is actually shot, and take out the shooter. If bullets are just plinking off armour, I don't believe they would fire back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn-again
(Kent State ring any bells, Magna? Just curious. How many died again?)
If it's a SHTF revolt? No....they would be shoulder to shoulder with us. You would see tank turrets pointed at the White House, before you ever saw tank turrets pointed at your house.

I suppose there's always that chance though......no matter how small it is.
Bt what specific Moderator cut: language? What fan is getting hit? It's all in context, and that context may be the stated maintenance of our country's stability (through control of the unions, the farmers, those in transportation, refining, food services, medical necessities. All as per the mindset of Obama.)

Who specifically is to say what is considered necessary and thus when a state of absolute Federally controlled Martial Law is instantly imposed, as was done in Katrina!

Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 12-30-2012 at 08:46 AM.. Reason: Edited to comply with Great Debates guidelines
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Australia
4,001 posts, read 6,270,962 times
Reputation: 6856
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcg View Post
Sorry, But please explain how the second amendment can be obsolete?
obsolete Definition
No longer appropriate for the purpose it was obtained due either to the availability of better alternatives or change in userrequirements. See also obsolescence.

Read more: What is obsolete? definition and meaning

That's obsolete. Now let's look at the second amendment.

Ratified in 1791.

Back when marauding natives were a problem, and your country had just got over the American Revolution, and was about to launch into a civil war.

Different times indeed.

The "arms" that the second amendment relates to were cumbersome, inaccurate, needed time to be loaded, and were more useful as a threat than anything else.

The Springfield Armory in Springfield, Massachusetts became important to the history of firearms during the 1850s, when it debuted the Springfield rifle.[23] Springfield rifles were among the very first breech-loading rifles, starting production in 1865. By that time, metallurgy had developed sufficiently so that brass could be worked into fixed ammunition. Previously, each round was custom made as needed: the shooter poured loose powder down the barrel, used leather or cloth for wadding if time allowed, selected a suitable projectile (lead ball, rocks, arrow, or nail), then seated the projectile on top of the powder charge by means of a ramrod. Performance was erratic.

History of the firearm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, up until 1850 a gun holder had to stop, pour in gunpowder, tamp, etc between every shot.

Even a slow marauder/zombie could stroll away by the time this was done. The risk to human life due to gunshot at the time was negligible.

How many minutes did it take Lanza to slaughter 26 innocent women and children?

Clearly, the 2nd amendment was intended for the conditions of the 18th century, not the new millenium, where firepower is accurate, deadly, freely available, and very very quick.

Therefore, the 2nd amendment clearly fits the definition of OBSOLETE.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-29-2012, 07:35 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,913,530 times
Reputation: 3767
Default Revisionism: coming to a theatre of mindless thought near you soon!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MsAnnThrope View Post
[b]
So, up until 1850 a gun holder had to stop, pour in gunpowder, tamp, etc between every shot.

Even a slow marauder/zombie could stroll away by the time this was done. The risk to human life due to gunshot at the time was negligible.

How many minutes did it take Lanza to slaughter 26 innocent women and children?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
Fact: a Remington 870 pump shotgun will hold up to 10 rounds, is rapidly reloaded from a stripper clip, and would have been a far more effective crowd killing weapon! It did not, however provide the necessary romantic presentation and go-pleasing visuals! Regardless, the Rem 870 is, in fact, THE weapon of choice by literally all of the US LEO community for close-support infighting.

Again, in case it's slipped your rather porous mind, less than 1% of gun violence is committed by the item you care to define as an assault weapon with a big ammo capacity. As well, I can rather quickly reload any weapon.

To wit: The Germans were stunned during the trench shooting of the first world war by the proficiency of the bolt sction, 8 shot, slow-to-reload Lee-Enfield bolt action battle rifle. Practice made perfect.

(I'd love to hear your comments on this video please... An honest one that is...)


Very Fast Mad Minute from a SMLE- 10 Shots in 6.5 Seconds - YouTube

OMG, huh? Best ban them too! BAN BAN BAAAaahhhhnnnn (sort of sounds a bit like a sheeple, don't it??)

FACT, in evidence for all here to see: you do not know of what you speak, but fortunately, there will never be a blanket amendment to the Second Amendment. Think of the supermajority requirements, by a supermajority of all states. So sorry: you don't get your illogical, super-ineffective and hate-filed way.

But then, that's the glory of our Constitution isn't it? Knee-jerk bloviations by the uneducated doth not make right!
Clearly, the 2nd amendment was intended for the conditions of the 18th century, not the new millenium, where firepower is accurate, deadly, freely available, and very very quick.

Therefore, the 2nd Amendment clearly fits the definition of OBSOLETE.[/quote]

Wrong. It's as important today, obviously, as it was then. check out the relatively modern situations that Stalin, Mao, Attila, Il Ducé, Hitler and Pol Pot (and possibly Barama...) did, or may well yet, invoke.

It's all for your own safety, they'll tell you, and you can then snuggle up to the latest CNN feely-good broadcast (until there's another de-rango-nut who hits a psychotic breaking point with no prior evidence.. at which time they will, move on to claiming single-shot black-powder derringers (oh, I forgot: them's too concealable!) and/or any guns to blame, and then they'll move on to outlaw sharp-bladed lawn mowers, scissors ('ceptin' them nifty plastic ones...), all knives (oh yeah; that one's already coming to fruition in Canada & Britain via blade length, style, and so on.)

Better we all live in an Orwellian dream suburbia, eh, MsAnnT? I know you'd like it there!)

Last edited by rifleman; 12-29-2012 at 07:40 PM.. Reason: uote]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2012, 07:43 AM
pcg
 
98 posts, read 377,263 times
Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsAnnThrope View Post
obsolete Definition
No longer appropriate for the purpose it was obtained due either to the availability of better alternatives or change in userrequirements. See also obsolescence.

Read more: What is obsolete? definition and meaning

That's obsolete. Now let's look at the second amendment.

Ratified in 1791.

Back when marauding natives were a problem, and your country had just got over the American Revolution, and was about to launch into a civil war.

Different times indeed.

The "arms" that the second amendment relates to were cumbersome, inaccurate, needed time to be loaded, and were more useful as a threat than anything else.

The Springfield Armory in Springfield, Massachusetts became important to the history of firearms during the 1850s, when it debuted the Springfield rifle.[23] Springfield rifles were among the very first breech-loading rifles, starting production in 1865. By that time, metallurgy had developed sufficiently so that brass could be worked into fixed ammunition. Previously, each round was custom made as needed: the shooter poured loose powder down the barrel, used leather or cloth for wadding if time allowed, selected a suitable projectile (lead ball, rocks, arrow, or nail), then seated the projectile on top of the powder charge by means of a ramrod. Performance was erratic.

History of the firearm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, up until 1850 a gun holder had to stop, pour in gunpowder, tamp, etc between every shot.

Even a slow marauder/zombie could stroll away by the time this was done. The risk to human life due to gunshot at the time was negligible.

How many minutes did it take Lanza to slaughter 26 innocent women and children?

Clearly, the 2nd amendment was intended for the conditions of the 18th century, not the new millenium, where firepower is accurate, deadly, freely available, and very very quick.

Therefore, the 2nd amendment clearly fits the definition of OBSOLETE.
You make no sense, probably intentional on your part. You are grossly misinformed. The second amendment is simply written and means today what it has always meant. You and your kind can not twist it in to something it is not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 10:16 AM
 
Location: NY
254 posts, read 436,275 times
Reputation: 385
pcg, you are correct! Some people will never get it, nor do I think they want to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2013, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,765,227 times
Reputation: 24863
Default Self Defense

We all must realize that a substantial portion of our population is simply TERRIFIED of having to use violence to defend themselves. They do not know how and expect that some authority will always be there to prevent them from being harmed. They see no reason for anyone to be armed. To them being armed is tantamount to being a criminal.

These people are completely delusional as the authorities have refused to take responsibility for not only protecting individuals but also for protecting innocents in gun (self defense) free places. These are the people demanding elimination of not only scary guns but all other weapons. Because they are very law abiding people they sincerely believe passing a law will disarm everyone and eliminate violence. They simply ignore a few hundred millennia of human behavior. Humans are not always peaceful.

Those of us that recognize that violence is inherent in people prefer to be ready to defend ourselves, our families and sometimes perfect strangers form violent assault and we resent having anyone tell us what weapons we cannot use. We are not criminals just because we are ready to respond to violent threats with greater violence.
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