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.
When you place restrictions or bans on citizens' right to own and carry a gun, THAT'S when you are tempting fate.
Society after society has learned that the hard way for century after century, and the Founding Fathers knew it. Which is why they proposed and ratified the 2nd amendment, forbidding government from putting ANY restrictions on guns and other such weapons.
And leftist big-government pushers have been ignoring that fact for just as long. It hits too close to home for them.
What the hell kind of idiotic society would not allow the government to put restrictions on weapons? That would be even more insane than the current insane wild west United States. WAY more insane. I can't even imagine.
And, the founding fathers had no concept of a minigun, or mustard gas, or Tomahawk cruise missiles. So why would we consult anything they said or wrote, when it comes to the policy about things that didn't exist yet?
I'm fine with civilians having a (registered) handgun, basic manual shotgun, basic manual hunting rifle. If they can pass a thorough background check and obtain a firearms license. That's a fair compromise.
But yes, we need to restrict all kinds of guns and weapons. No civilian needs a military weapon. That's for the military. No automatic weapons, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, tanks, anthrax, tactical nuclear warheads, etc. Civilians should not be possessing these things.
The 2A says that you can be armed. Alright, fine. It doesn't say that you can be armed with anything imaginable, ever. Especially as technology continually increases with weapons, every passing century.
What the hell kind of idiotic society would not allow the government to put restrictions on weapons? That would be even more insane than the current insane wild west United States. WAY more insane. I can't even imagine.
And, the founding fathers had no concept of a minigun, or mustard gas, or Tomahawk cruise missiles. So why would we consult anything they said or wrote, when it comes to the policy about things that didn't exist yet?
Machine guns existed well before the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, a full 73 years after the Puckle Gun was invented. Although modern machine guns are vastly more effective than the Puckle Gun, it nevertheless demonstrates that humans were contemplating rapid-fire weaponry nearly a century before the Founders guaranteed that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The Puckle gun is a mounted, portable, crew-served revolving machine gun. It was intended to be used on ships to rapidly fire at boarding parties.
The Kalthoff Repeater, designed in 1630, was a flintlock rifle that could fire between 30-60 rounds per minute. It went through multiple variations, some able to fire 29 shots without reloading, similar to the standard magazine capacities of the Colt AR-15.
The Cookson Repeater, Designed in 1750, was a repeating rifle designed in the late 17th century. It used a rotating drum magazine and had a fourteen shot capacity. The gun could fire all fourteen shots without reloading,
Machine guns existed well before the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, a full 73 years after the Puckle Gun was invented. Although modern machine guns are vastly more effective than the Puckle Gun, it nevertheless demonstrates that humans were contemplating rapid-fire weaponry nearly a century before the Founders guaranteed that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The Puckle gun is a mounted, portable, crew-served revolving machine gun. It was intended to be used on ships to rapidly fire at boarding parties.
The Kalthoff Repeater, designed in 1630, was a flintlock rifle that could fire between 30-60 rounds per minute. It went through multiple variations, some able to fire 29 shots without reloading, similar to the standard magazine capacities of the Colt AR-15.
The Cookson Repeater, Designed in 1750, was a repeating rifle designed in the late 17th century. It used a rotating drum magazine and had a fourteen shot capacity. The gun could fire all fourteen shots without reloading,
How many of those seminal machine guns were built and owed by private citizens?
What the hell kind of idiotic society would not allow the government to put restrictions on weapons?
The kind that studies a little history (or a lot) and knows that societies have been historically harmed far more by government than by the occasional whacko with a gun. And knows that if you give government an inch they will take a mile. So that, the only gun law that will preserve their freedom and safety, is one that says no government can put ANY restrictions on their freedom to own guns. Not the slightest loophole that gives government even the slightest power to restrict or ban guns from the people.
The only "idiotic" people in society, are the ones who don't know what history grimly has shown us time and again. Or worse, those who choose to deliberately ignore it.... primaltech.
Anything else I can explain to you? For the third time?
The main use of civilian-owned firearms is to DETER crimes. Which is a far better result than the results we have gotten from every government so-called "gun control" scheme, which have never resulted in ANY reduction in crime.
But essentially no gun control measures have been enacted. Practically no guns have been banned, and nobody has had their weapons confiscated. Whatever problems we have with gun violence today is in an environment of very liberal gun laws (note: liberal in this context means it’s easy to get a gun)
So all the talk about failure of gun control to reduce gun violence is hypothetical. We haven’t actually tried it.
Every time there's a mass shooting, the only alternatives people seem to examine, are either "ban more and more guns", or "everybody should be armed".
How about if we simply let the 2nd amendment do what it was originally intended to do?
If everyone is allowed to carry a gun, would everybody do it? Of course not. Most wouldn't bother.
But a few probably would.
And the guy who wants to commit mass murder, would know it. If he wants to go someplace where nobody could shoot back, and divert him from the body counts he wanted to rack up....
.... a get-together, or a public place like a store, office, concert, etc. festival where probably several out of a hundred people were armed, would be the LAST place he'd want to open fire. He might not be afraid of dying. But his plan is often to rack up a huge body count and get weeks of lurid headlines after the police finally show up and kill him.
If the 2nd amendment were actually upheld and enforced as written, and all law-abiding adults were freely allowed to carry a gun, most still wouldn't bother. But a few would.
And a criminal planning to rob a store, shoot up an office, or murder or rape someone in the street, shoot up a school etc., would know that there was a pretty good chance that some of the people in the crowd or campus were armed, and knew how to use their weapons.
Some of the crazier criminals might go ahead and commit their crimes anyway. But a number of them would consider the increased risk to himself, and decide not to commit it, than do nowadays.
Presto, a mass shooting prevented, all without a shot being fired.
Why don't we try upholding the 2nd amendment, instead of expecting government to make everything better? If someone were contemplating killing people, but knows there's probably someone near him armed and ready, he's less likely to even start.
The main use of civilian-owned firearms is to DETER crimes. Which is a far better result than the results we have gotten from every government so-called "gun control" scheme, which have never resulted in ANY reduction in crime.
Lot less gun crimes in advanced democratic countries WITHOUT 2nd ammendment.
Give us a minute, for folks to wade through that carp.
National Firearms Act (NFA) (1934)
Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (FFA)
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968)
Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA)
Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) (1986)
Undetectable Firearms Act (1988)
Now do you want to try that again?
Would you like to see a list of all the types of firearms that have already been banned?
So the most recent attempt to restrict guns that you can cite was 45 years ago, and addressed plastic guns that could escape metal detectors (like I said, “practically “ no guns have been banned).
Then you cite the FOPA, which was primarily a bill to weaken the GCA, which you also cited. By the way, the GCA repealed the FFA.
I’ll grant you that fully automatic guns - machine guns - have been restricted. That’s about it.
What they didn't want the States to do a repeat of the Civil War, with each State having a well trained well regulated militia? Why temp fate, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucyinthesky444
When you place restrictions or bans on citizens' right to own and carry a gun, THAT'S when you are tempting fate.
Society after society has learned that the hard way for century after century, and the Founding Fathers knew it. Which is why they proposed and ratified the 2nd amendment, forbidding government from putting ANY restrictions on guns and other such weapons.
And leftist big-government pushers have been ignoring that fact for just as long. It hits too close to home for them.
I'm not left, (no one lets me in their club for long) just reading the amendment --- so your telling me that if a person upon the age of 21 was required to join their State's National Guard so that they can carry a gun on their person at all times, is a restriction?
Second Amendment
"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."
If you ask me, the Federal Government doesn't want to temp fate (Civil War do over) that each State would have the military power to take on the u.s. Armed Forces. Thus the reason the second amendment has never been enforced verbatim. The Federal Government doesn't want to relive the idea that the States might get into their heads, that a Confederate Form of Government is the better way to go and is in the best interest of serving their citizens.
So they allow the States per the 10th Amendment to enact "gun control" laws. Which do what? Infringe on the rights of the citizens.
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.
