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.
Would you like me to define keep too...?
To have or retain possession of
to continue or cause to continue in a specified condition, position, course, etc.
Provide sustenance of
To Honor or fulfill
To make written entries in
Bear Arms, means:
It means you as an individual can carry any weapon you wish.
It means you can use that weapon against anyone trying to remove it from you or harm you in anyway.
It means you can defend yourself against all attacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Who is redefining it, certainly not me. However if you think the 2nd recognizes your right to use firearms, it may be you.
It has already been redefined! Sheriffs tried to disarm the populations and it was found unconstitutional.
1934, congress passed a firearms ACT. that was the first redefinition, cities banning open carry, then banning conceal carry, then banning all guns within the city limits. Now the federal government wants to take full control over our guns. There have been many bills brought into legislatures in the past 100 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
It was, in the 2nd Amendment.
However I do think you're barking up the wrong tree, I'm just pointing out that the use of arms is not protected by the second, it would be protected for use in self defense, or rights to hunt. What is protected is ownership of arms (i.e. all the combination of parts needed to have a functioning arm, so weapons and any needed ammunition, power supplies, etc. etc.)
Probably the reason that this was overlooked is that any tyrannical government who planned on subjugating a population would assume that people shooting their agents was probably a crime anyway, certainly in the eyes of those trying to subjugate, and it's far easier to outlaw the ownership of arms, than it is to expect people to not shoot someone attempting to kill them or deprive them of their liberties (i.e. kidnap, invasion of property, or depriving them of it, etc.).
No one will ever get away with murder. The thing is, it is becoming harder and harder to get away with defending one's self, without being labelled as a criminal.
Nah, the day I worry about what ignorant gun fondlers think of me will be a cold day in hell.
Most of the more ignorant gun grabbers I suspect are criminals and especially abusers of the elderly and rapists. Their desire for a "safe society" is almost certainly rooted in a hidden agenda to weaken the protections of their intended victims.
I of course base this on my female friend that lived in a rural area and was targeted for rape, robbery and perhaps murder by a career criminal that came after her in her own home. He was shot.
So, going forward in the interest of fair and balanced discourse, I will refer to the "gun control lobby" as the "pro-rape lobby".
Here's what's ALWAYS lost in these "discussions"...
Almost w/o exception, the shooters at these mass killings are NOT gun nuts.
They're psychotic loons who get their hands on the weapons shortly before using them to kill multiple innocent victims.
These mass murders are a gun problem like drunk driving is an automobile problem.
If the left recognized this the pharmaceutical companies would be in danger along with their money investors. Easier to blame a whole group rather than a small percent who cause the terror.
Decisions ...decisions...do I take a Viagra and grab a handful of Trojans or grab old Betsy and load a full metal jacket?
Why shucks both are enjoyable to shoot....
The thing that gets "gun rights advocates" labeled nuts is a tendency to flatly reject any thought of any kind of regulation regarding gun usage (This is of course heavily ironic given the second amendment's inbuilt stipulation about regulation).
It's not that some people like/use, even collect guns. Rather, it is the idea that even after a national tragic rampage like the one in Newtown, gun "nuts" will not consider any sort of change to gun ownership policies at all--even those that would never affect any lawful gun owner. Because when you say this to a "gun nut" they will reply with a theory about how "once you curtail one man's right to have ten tons of ammunition, they're going to come after our guns, in our homes," etc... This logic is actually based on a rhetorical fallacy known as the "slippery slope." You can look it up. Their main argument is a logical fallacy.
And then when it comes to defending their "rights" they turn not to the rhetoric of responsibility but to the rhetoric of freedom. I can think of nothing more absurd than pairing the most dangerous legally allowable possession with the rhetoric of freedom. Even beer companies know better, with their "drink responsibly" slogan. And do beer drinkers get upset when the government regulates use of alcohol while driving, or in some areas where it is purchased? No, and they ACTUALLY HAVE A PRECEDENT to do so, with prohibition and what not. Gun nuts have no precedent for the government taking all their guns, but they will still sit there and forecast its coming in the future based on no evidence whatsoever.
Btw, I kind of think guns are cool and if my wife would let me have one I'd probably buy one and shoot it occasionally. That's what Texas will do to a northern liberal, I suppose. But I still have my wits about me and I certainly can spot a religious zealot when I see one by their unreasonableness. Gun nuts pass the test of unreasonableness with flying colors.
If your wife would let you have one? BTW, there are many people that would call anyone who needs permission from their spouse to own a gun, nuts. You use the term gun nuts freely yet don't see the very problem you create, the perception that you are so ideologically biased that nothing you say really means anything other than to like minded people. You'd probably be one of the first to stand up and scream about someone who used a racial slur yet you replace the form of a racial slur through the use of "gun nut". You really think that makes a point other than veiled bigotry? It is rather transparent.
Lets not forget why so many gun owners think gun control is something to prevent at every juncture. It is called incremental prohibition. Most gun control laws are ill conceived and rarely implemented in accordance with the intent of the law.
If you analyzed all the gun control laws that are currently on the books, you'd find that not one of them would adequately deal with the "national tragedy" as you call them. Most gun control laws can be compared to a law that puts up a speed limit sign at an intersection where many people have been killed by drunk drivers. They do not address the cause, aren't enforced and then when the results don't accomplish the intended goal another law is created. Instead of getting to stop sign at the intersection and putting up a DUI checkpoint, the gun control proponent comes up with a new sign, this one says "no illegal parking". None of it makes sense and people still get killed.
So what do gun owners see? Laws proposed that don't address the cause, punish everyone and with each new law, get closer to a complete ban on private gun ownership.
Gun owners aren't innocent in all this because they always fight every law, rarely if ever getting involved to fix flaws in the law. They are so busy fighting against any law that they don't contribute anything but tag lines like "...from my cold dead fingers..." or something like that. Yeah, that sure gets people to see your point.
The failure of the gun owners is that they don't understand that people have changed and thinking you can leave gun ownership as it was hundreds of years ago doesn't work today. Likewise, gun control advocates think because people (society) has changed that the answer to every problem is prohibiting everyone from doing something not understanding that laws can be written to act upon the criminal elements or those with mental diseases instead of throwing up their arms and simply creating problems for everyone.
The flaw in the gun control advocacy is that they offer no solutions and will not admit to knowing the root causes of violence. The problem isn't guns, knives, machetes, bombs or anything like that, it is violence in whatever form it takes. If all the guns in the world were destroyed, there would still be killing but few gun control advocates will ever admit to that. Their answer is usually something like "but the killings won't be because of guns" not having the intellectual honesty to admit that it is not the gun that causes violence it is what society has allowed itself to become that is the cause.
Of course the gun owners always fall back on the old tired mantra of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" in a gumble of semantic word game playing. It is the final link in the chain of events that kills the person, in this case, the bullet and that is fired from a gun. Arguing that someone pulled the trigger feeds into pure ignorance of how people think and what they perceive. To date no death certificate ever said person A shot person B as the cause of death. The cause of death was the bullet. For some reason, gun owners can't understand that to most people, there is no difference between the death and the killing when it comes to guns. They are the same and it doesn't matter what the argument is, if most people see it as the same then you had better darn well accept that and change your semantics to better make your point.
The gun control advocates however, won't even acknowledge that a person is involved in the killing, they focus only on the gun as if it was more than an object. To understand why this is doesn't take much effort. Steve Jobs figured it out. Take the fans of Apple who buy iPhones. There is an emotional bond between the person and an electronic device that is sometimes greater than their bond with other human beings. They won't say so until a new iPhone comes out and then they will forgo food, water, family and work to stand in line to get a new iPhone. The extreme component of gun control advocates are just like that so they apply that thinking to guns. That would seem crazy until you see some gun owners who have emotional bonds to guns. Both groups are peas in the same pod and unfortunately, they are also the most vocal and because of their like thinking demand a lot of influence. They get it because politicians grease squeaky wheels, having learned that controlling only small numbers of the total population can win an election.
It will not be possible to address gun control in any sense but the irrational, on both sides, unless gun control laws were scrapped and reasonable people came together to address the causes and then look past the gun and to the root and address that.
It is possible to create laws and enforce them to effectively curb violence where guns are a component. Strangely though, they would not be gun control laws because speed limit signs don't prevent drunk drivers anymore than gun control laws prevent criminal from killing people.
Laws that address the root causes of violence can be effective. The trick is of course, writing such laws that we as a society are willing to enforce. Since violence can be committed by anyone, enforcement of such laws isn't something we are likely to ever allow because our Constitution for all it's greatness, is in conflict with any such law. The Constitution itself contains the inherent conflict of rights that insure we'll never figure out how to address violence because all rights detailed in the Constitution can be protected through the use of violence (force) and lethal force at that. The Constitution is written so that the individual must accept the conflicts within it and give up certain rights or taken to the final argument, the individual is subject to losing their life.
Last edited by Mack Knife; 11-20-2013 at 11:13 AM..
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.
Gunnuts, gunhuggers, gunfondlers.
