Is the Second Amendment necessary? (drug, deaths, felony, federal)

[Electrician4you]

Originally Posted by Retired in Illinois

The founding fathers had no way of predicting the advancement in weapons nor could they predict that their intent would be twisted/preverted by modern industries that would profit from these weapons misuse in peace time. To say that all weapons are created without a specific purpose is pure folly. NO private citizen needs military/police style weapons except to play Rambo or soldier.

Says who? You? There are millions of law abiding gun owners in this country who have not once thought of doing anything as grabbing a gun and going on a rampage. And I’m sure quite a few own military style weapons. So what.

Originally Posted by reneeh63

Ha - how about the evolution of firearms from slow loading muskets to psuedo-semi-automatic models?

How about the evolution of speech from the old single sheet print press to instant info anytime anywhere. How about all those kids who kill them selves because they are bullied by other kids on social media.

Originally Posted by phetaroi

Are you actually telling me that you think that the right to shoot gun is equivalent to the right to speak?????

Wtf. The right to own a gun is no different than the right to speak. It’s called the bill of rights for a reason. It’s not the some are more important than others bill of rights . One isn’t any less important than the other.

Originally Posted by ozarknation

It was created in the 1700s, then cities and towns didn't have Police Departments or Law Enforcement.
Is the right to own weapons necessary any longer?

Go back and ask the Croats and Muslims if they wanted weapons when the Serbs came with their ethnic cleansing.

Maybe the Kurds might have a opinion

The Tutsi in Rawanda might have a opinion

Mexico is inundated with guns. For a country that made guns illegal they sure as hell have a lot of murders.

Hey here is the thing. IF YOU don’t want to own a gun then dont own one. But because you dont want guns around doesn’t give you the authority to take away my right to own one. I am saddened by the fact that some idiot went out grabbed a gun and killed 17 innocent people. I don’t know any normal human being who wouldn’t be saddened,

If we were as draconian about putting people away when they show signs of psychopath type behavior as people seem to be about gun rights, you would have civil rights advocates screaming about violating the psychos rights. Since nobody is screaming about my right to own a gun I guess i gotta do the screaming. So no taking away my guns isn’t going to stop gun violence. It’s pretty stupid to think it will.

There are people using cars and running over groups of people. Drunks driving and killing people. Drugs are a epidemic. Nobody seems to be able to prevent that from happening. Yet taking guns away will fix people shooting people. Yeah ok.

See here is the bs part. We can all have all the rights we want as long as some of us allow the others to have those rights. Since I dint want you to have the right to bear arms we will take that away. Yeah it’s your right but I dint agree with it so we want t9 violate it by taking it away. So now you took away my pursuit of happiness.

Those guys wearing long socks and wigs were smarter than 99% of the people alive today.

[snebarekim]

Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker

I've argued this point many times to those who think the military and police would slaughter their own family, friends and neighbors. Destroying their homes and neighborhoods in the process. There would be absolutely nothing for them to come home to. It is more than likely that they would turn against the government that ordered them to do so. A lot of gun owning Americans are both active duty and retired law enforcement and military personnel who firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment and "Constitutional Law". Add to that the millions of us who know how to use firearms. Not to mention the quantity of guns and ammunition that are currently in private hands. We would indeed be a force to be reckoned with. The government could never win.

Regarding the bold part, I would have to disagree. I think the govt would win, if they had the will.
But it would certianly be a case of American police/military turning lethal force on fellow Americans, and American citizens doing the same back. The situation would be brutal, and everybody would know it. I served in the military for 22 years, so I have been on both sides of the fence. The mere fact that there are so many Americans that have/know/use weapons legally is a big reason why our govt, if it ever got that bad (I dont see that now) would be loathe to start a war on the people. That in itself shows the 2nd amendment is valid.

Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker

Not only would it be impossible for the feds to do it. It would be impossible for state and local governments to accomplish this monumental task. There simply is not enough manpower, not to mention the overwhelming burden on our criminal justice system bringing all of those who refuse to surrender their lawfully owned property to trial. There's just not enough jail space to incarcerate all of these newly minted criminals.

There would be great resistence to simple compliance. As to the Australian reference made earlier, Americans are not Austrailans. Its a different culture and mindset. It would make way too many criminals out of law abiding citizens.

[Ex New Yorker]

Originally Posted by ozarknation

We have Neighbor's Watch, every neighbor is watching and taking care for every neighbor. If we see something weird, we call the cops. I don't need an arsenal of guns in my house. We trust our local police and the sheriff.

Well that's all well and good. But when seconds count the police are 10 minutes away. It doesn't matter what you need nor do I even care. But it's none of your God damn business making the decision as to what someone else may need or under what circumstances.

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

Are you actually telling me that you think that the right to shoot gun is equivalent to the right to speak?????

Sorry, I didn't see the index to the Constitution where the various rights in the BOR are ranked. Did you think they appeared in descending order of importance or worth?

Originally Posted by Retired in Illinois

The gun debate overlooks a simple fact.

The 2nd amendment says that all have the right to "keep and bear arms". It does not say that everyone has the right to own police or military style arms.

IMO all of the common "hunting" weapons meet the intent of the 2nd amendment. Military/police style weapons do not. They are all designed for maximum kill rate of any human target. THAT is not the intent of the 2nd amendment. Under today's thinking machine , and/or fully automatic, weapons are illegal to for private citizens to own without a special permit with good reason. So it should be with any other military/police designed weapons.

Congress could, and should, outlaw all military/police style for citizen's private ownership. Owing common "hunting" weapons is more than enough for any person of sane and sound mind to own for their personal use.

Arms means all arms, or else Congress could have said otherwise. The clause means what it says and says what it means.

The intent of the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The intent of the second amendment is to articulate the compelling state interest in not infringing on the RKBA of individuals. It does not establish the RKBA, and repealing it wouldn't eliminate the RKBA. Repeal would not give the government the authority to infringe on the RKBA...the federal government has no authority unless it is specifically delegated that authority via the enumeration of powers (Article 1, Sections 8/9 is where those are listed)

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by Retired in Illinois

The gun debate overlooks a simple fact.

The 2nd amendment says that all have the right to "keep and bear arms". It does not say that everyone has the right to own police or military style arms.

IMO all of the common "hunting" weapons meet the intent of the 2nd amendment. Military/police style weapons do not. They are all designed for maximum kill rate of any human target. THAT is not the intent of the 2nd amendment. Under today's thinking machine , and/or fully automatic, weapons are illegal to for private citizens to own without a special permit with good reason. So it should be with any other military/police designed weapons.

Congress could, and should, outlaw all military/police style for citizen's private ownership. Owing common "hunting" weapons is more than enough for any person of sane and sound mind to own for their personal use.

All of the so called "acceptable" hunting firearms are derivatives of military firearms. Most of the people I know who hunt use an AR-15 part of the time.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention any specific type of arms, because the intent was to codify that citizens can keep and bear arms of any type.

Originally Posted by Retired in Illinois

The founding fathers had no way of predicting the advancement in weapons nor could they predict that their intent would be twisted/preverted by modern industries that would profit from these weapons misuse in peace time. To say that all weapons are created without a specific purpose is pure folly. NO private citizen needs military/police style weapons except to play Rambo or soldier.

That's honestly one of the stupidest things I've heard from an anti-gun person. You don't "need" most of what you own. Why shouldn't any citizen be as well armed as the police?

Originally Posted by ozarknation

My dad gave me a Remington 870 as a gift when I was in College, and sold it. I don't need guns, I don't hunt. I just call 911 if I need the police.
Maybe in the 1700s, it made sense. To have a gun to protect your family. Today is not necessary. Our police departments are funded with tax dollars to buy the most modern equipment and guns available in the market to protect us.

The Supreme Court ruled years ago that police have no obligation to protect you. The main role of police is to clean up the mess after a crime occurs. Police do very little prevention of crime or intervening in a crime in progress.

Originally Posted by Retired in Illinois

The Ar-15 is not a common hunting gun in the true sense of the word hunting. The Ar-15 has been adapted to what might be called hunting by owners desperate to shoot their new toy at something. Once again playing soldier.

The only difference between an AR15 and the "hunting guns" you mention is appearance. They are functionally identical.

[TomC23]

Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker

I don't ever remember reading in the Bill of Rights that the right to consume alcoholic beverages shall not be infringed.

As for women or any American citizen having the right to vote I agree with you. Same for slavery but the government allowed it and the people are to blame for letting them get away with it. But the point is that the first 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights are endowed to us by "our creator" and not by the will of the populous. They are basic civil liberties that only "our creator" can rescind regardless of the will of the populous. t Or tyranny by a majority. If that were the case then the populous could, if they so decided enact laws that discriminate against other groups of people for whatever reason they deem necessary. Just like what happened in Nazi Germany. You'd better be careful for what you wish for as the populace may one day target you. Especially as the political pendulum swings back and forth. That's the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights to protect individual civil liberties regardless of which political party is in power.

If the Constitution and Bill of Rights were as fluid as you say than you might as well tear up the whole God damn thing and have no Constitution or Bill of Rights at all as it would be just as worthless as the paper it's printed on.

There is a procedure for amending the Constitution. The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Good luck with that. If you look at a map of the United States showing "Red" and "Blue" counties you'll see that the overwhelming majority of them are "Red". Our system of government was designed so that the major population centers can not dictate public policy throughout the entire country. That's why we have an electoral college.

Sorry you lost me when you said our bill of rights was handed down by the mythical being "our creator".
And the Constitution does reflect the will of the populous as I have said twice now.

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by LowonLuck

No. Totally not necessary. Especially if we cannot make sure that guns are only in the hands of people that won't go on killing rampages.

Our rights to be safe and live, trump the right to the 2nd amendment

How to you propose to do this?
I don't think people expected a military person at fort hood to go on a shooting spree. The sad thing is all the people at the base were not allowed to carry arms and all were locked away. Had they been carrying perhaps the shooter would have been taken down.
I'm sure while many people feel police are there to protect us, you will have examples of Leo or former Leo killings civilians or even family.

[arwenmark]

Originally Posted by ozarknation

We have Neighbor's Watch, every neighbor is watching and taking care for every neighbor. If we see something weird, we call the cops. I don't need an arsenal of guns in my house. We trust our local police and the sheriff.

and when you call the police you have to wait for them to come, then they won't come in and save you assuming you are still arrive by the time they arrive, no they have to wait till they determine it is safe for the officers to enter and safe for the surrounding public before they enter the crime scene.
I am sure the local police and the sheriff appreciate your trust!

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by Retired in Illinois

The Ar-15 is not a common hunting gun in the true sense of the word hunting. The Ar-15 has been adapted to what might be called hunting by owners desperate to shoot their new toy at something. Once again playing soldier.

Once again another who can't see the facts for what they are but just keeps babbling on thinking they actually make sense are are right.
Even your own statements contradict each other and you change their meaning every time you get challenged on something. You've pretty much lost all credibility to have a rational conversation.
What the heck is traditional hunting?

[Pilot1]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

And apparently you don't know about mass slaughter of our fellow citizens.

It is a rarity, and you know it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of gun free zones like schools to make it more difficult for these nuts. I know about mass slaughter of people in home invasions, car jackings, drug related murders, muggings, burglaries, etc. It is nice to be able to defend against that, and have a bit of a chance.