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.
I)
2) Second amendment: you keep beating a dead horse. Repeating a false assumption doesn't make it true. Its is false even on the millionth time. These guns "in the hands of citizens" aren't going to protect you in case the government wants to get rid of democracy or turn America into a dictatorship. Perhaps muskets and shotguns could do that 200 year ago. No fire arm that is legal today would stop any government attack or takeover. (Would there be a time when you stop fantasising and wake up from your dream?). No pistol, shotgun or AK-47 can save you from what the government can throw at you. I didn't hear people interpreting the 2ed amendment, asking to to include attack helicopters, guided missiles, battle tanks or F-35 type of weaponry.
Practically, the only one that can get hurt by using of rifles is your neighbor, family, or maybe an intruder. On the other hand, the current trend of mass shootings will only continue and grow. Any mad dog, scumbag, or "hearing voices" type people, will use their "second amendment rights" to grab the headlines.
That's the reality. Obama's administration is asking to expand checks on people who purchase new firearms. Why would you or anyone be against that? Why would you want every deranged folk in US to own firearms? Why?
In this notion, maybe we should "allow" citizens to own battle tanks, guided missiles and attack helicopters then?
Secondly, I'd challenge you to think a case when government were able to kill off rebels in modern time. Maybe in Iraqi, Syrian, Afgan wars where the military superpowers were able to win?
In this notion, maybe we should "allow" citizens to own battle tanks, guided missiles and attack helicopters then?
Secondly, I'd challenge you to think a case when government were able to kill off rebels in modern time. Maybe in Iraqi, Syrian, Afgan wars where the military superpowers were able to win?
I do not see where the 2nd amendment gives anyone that authority to make that determination for me, much less government, who was told point blank, do not infringe on the arms we make, distribute, keep, carry or use..
Guided missiles? Rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air... Pretty sure they were used.
Government didn't start investing and inventing new weapons for military use only, until after WW-II
The people made the weapons, not the government.
^^^ Yeah right. Advocate for the overthrow of the govt and see what happens. We have become the prisoners of tyranny as a result of not standing up for and demanding our freedoms be restored to where they were 100 years ago before the socialism took over.
There is an amendment that clearly tells the government, that the people will have the unobstructed ability to organize with their own arms they determine and train in Domestic tactical warfare, for their own defense. It even tells government to not even try to stop the people, or they the government would become the very oppressive tyranny they were training for to fight against.
Try that today.
Face it. Government owns you and me at this point in time and as you see, it is only going to get worse, because government knows best and will force you to do it their way.
2) Second amendment: you keep beating a dead horse. Repeating a false assumption doesn't make it true. Its is false even on the millionth time. These guns "in the hands of citizens" aren't going to protect you in case the government wants to get rid of democracy or turn America into a dictatorship. Perhaps muskets and shotguns could do that 200 year ago. No fire arm that is legal today would stop any government attack or takeover. (Would there be a time when you stop fantasising and wake up from your dream?). No pistol, shotgun or AK-47 can save you from what the government can throw at you. I didn't hear people interpreting the 2ed amendment, asking to to include attack helicopters, guided missiles, battle tanks or F-35 type of weaponry.
Practically, the only one that can get hurt by using of rifles is your neighbor, family, or maybe an intruder. On the other hand, the current trend of mass shootings will only continue and grow. Any mad dog, scumbag, or "hearing voices" type people, will use their "second amendment rights" to grab the headlines.
That's the reality. Obama's administration is asking to expand checks on people who purchase new firearms. Why would you or anyone be against that? Why would you want every deranged folk in US to own firearms? Why?
In order for your argument to work, you would have to blindly assume that all, or even a large majority, of the armed forces and federal officers would accept unconstitutional orders. I'd bet that most people who took the oath upon joining the military stand behind that oath 100%. This being the case, you've effectively made the military so small in size they would stand little chance.
But, they have planes and missiles and drones, you say? Who is going to fly them? Do you think a cabinet member is going to take up the controls? Highly unlikely. Then you have the issues of actually arming the planes and drones. Those are not just positions you can walk into without training on safety at the bare minimum.
I believe that majority of the members of the armed forces would return to their families, even at risk of being charged with treason, if faced with a situation like being ordered to turn on the populace.
Remember, government is not some robotic force. It is made up of people with husbands and wives and children. They will not attack their families and friends.
So, yes. A shotgun or a semi-auto AK-47 would be sufficient to put up a fight. Fighter jets and missiles would hardly be necessary.
On the topic of background checks, you have to keep in mind there is a very vocal group of people who want nothing more than complete confiscation and an outright ban on civilians owning ANY arms. Expanding background checks is nothing more than a small step in their preferred direction. Do I want felons or psychopaths owning firearms? Absolutely not. I also do not want the rights of law-abiding folk to be impacted by a knee-jerk reaction. If a law is to be passed, it needs to be perfect, not mostly right or somewhat ideal. We've become terribly impatient as a society and that extends to the demand for immediate action whenever a problem arises. Often, the immediate action is the wrong action.
My preferred action would be to enforce our existing laws rather than make new ones. Many of our problems would be handled. Take the guy who wanted to shoot up a Masonic lodge for example. Current laws were enforced. Have the punishment for felons with firearms actually be imposed and enforced. Making some average Joe jump through more hoops to buy a rifle is not going to solve any problems. Hell, make and enforce a law regarding the proper storage of firearms. If our government can mandate the purchase of health insurance, surely they will have little issue forcing people to buy a lock box for their pistol. They could even have another $300MM website and subsidies and deadlines and penalties, and all that.
No one has noticed.... that this thread has kept the dogs at bay?
You would think there would be just a little debate. Instead, everyone(even those opposing my views most of the time) agreeing with the original post.
It isn't surprising, that it is hard to argue with the truth of the matter.
Now, why do we let them highly restrict our 2nd amendment, that cannot be voted away or altered in congress, or by a Presidents pen.
The one amendment, that protects the above from happening in the first place.
Who gave government any rights to the peoples arms?
Did they just take that for themselves, without the peoples approval, like they have the rest and will continue until force stops them?
The 1st Amendment, like the 2nd, allows for restrictions. The 1st Amendment allows speech restrictions like: content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions, libel/slander restrictions, intellectual property restrictions, commercial speech restrictions, obscenity restrictions, etc.
The 2nd allows for restrictions on categories of firearm & ammunition, registration requirements, gun safety requirements, and others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Not saying they the governments have not tried.
Would we as a nation set in our ways, really allow they the government to pass restrictive laws upon the 1st amendment? We we set in our ways allow the 1st amendment to be amended?
The same can not be said for the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court said so, to keep me safe. Patriot Act and The NDAA are direct violations of the 4th amendment. I don't care what another person thinks. I can read the amendment and see what they are doing. I'm not an idiot like they wish I was. Did they just take that for themselves, without the peoples approval?
Then the 5th Amendment... A thing of the past. Again, the Supreme Court said so, to keep everyone but you safe. Did they just take that for themselves, without the peoples approval?
The 8th is leaned on constantly in the justice system, with no end in sight as the Police State increases. Did they just take that for themselves, without the peoples approval?
Now, why do we let them highly restrict our 2nd amendment? The one amendment, that protects the above from happening in the first place. Who gave government any rights to the peoples arms? Did they just take that for themselves, without the peoples approval?
The Government v. The Free People.
Owned by Government at all levels? Or do you as an individual actually have any liberty?
The 4th allows warranted searches & seizures, as well as reasonable searches and seizures.
The 5th continues to exist and operate. There are several rights contained within, including Due Process, Grand Jury Indictment, Double Jeopardy, protection against self-incrimination, and limitation on eminent domain.
Do you realistically believe that modern police don't have the capability to overwhelm whatever firepower you may have, or at the very least hole you up and wait you out? As we have seen in Oregon this year, people who see themselves as "freedom fighters" are seen as "terrorists" by everyone else.
Do you realistically believe that modern police don't have the capability to overwhelm whatever firepower you may have, or at the very least hole you up and wait you out? As we have seen in Oregon this year, people who see themselves as "freedom fighters" are seen as "terrorists" by everyone else.
How on Earth would you even ask a question like that? No one advocates shooting people for doing their job. Admittedly, there are many of us who would like to kick a few of them in the butt from time to time (politicians).
Aside from a few outlets, I've not seen too many people refer to the guys in Oregon as terrorists. Now, idiots, morons, dumbasses, etc., I've heard. Calling them terrorists seems more in line with promoting a narrative rather than explaining what is happening. What, exactly causes the Oregon crowd to be terrorists? I'll freely admit I didn't sit in front of the TV waiting on the latest breaking news from Oregon, so I may have missed a few things, but I still don't think they've acted as terrorists at all. I just read through a timeline and I didn't see any threats issued.
"He said that over the years, law enforcement has learned how to handle a situation like this; one that hasn't erupted in violence and in which a law may be broken, but there's no immediate threat to anyone's life." - CNN article here: Armed group takes over Oregon wildlife refuge building - CNN.com
terrorism
[ter-uh-riz-uh m]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Added: That pronunciation immediately conjurs the voice of George Bush in my head. I can just hear him saying it, right along with "nuc-u-ler." lol
Basically, some people can insult offend and slander anyone they want and are protected..... and others can't say anything mildly offensive without having the media destroy them
Our country has more protected speech than anywhere else these days
Put in prison or have your life destroyed over your speech.... not sure which is worse
Do you realistically believe that modern police don't have the capability to overwhelm whatever firepower you may have, or at the very least hole you up and wait you out? As we have seen in Oregon this year, people who see themselves as "freedom fighters" are seen as "terrorists" by everyone else.
YES... Corruption to gain more power, is oppression
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.
