US 2nd amendment, keep & bear arms good or bad?

mucker wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

motokid wrote:

Did the Vietnamese surrender? What about Iraq? Afghanistan?

Think modern times.

Look at Afghanistan alone? Russia? US invasion?

Those fuckers refuse to give up.

Truly amazing if you think about it.

Wrong again Moto.

If the United States utter existence depended on "winning" these wars we would have won. Because the hard men would do what had to be done and the civilians would look the other way. When wars are optional, they are fought with "modern" sensibilities.

You don't win wars that way. You win by convincing the other side that if they don't surrender most of you are going to die.

'Modern' sensibilities have us trying to win hearts and minds. Grab their balls, hearts and minds will follow.

Absolutely...you can either convince them or exterminate them.
So, how is convincing them goin for ya....or have you moved to the plan B group already?

Here, I thought wars were for when you ran out of options.

Neither, we are not convincing them they are all going to die. We are nation building and trying to bride them into the fold.

"Wars are fought when you run out of options" ... What I said is they are "won" when you are convinced it's a battle to the death. When you fight "optional wars" ... winning becomes optional.

gatorfan wrote:

I have a Q:

Are "fully automatic" weapons illegal everywhere in the US (with narrow exceptions)? The "automatic" weapons people have are modified such that it is .... "one trigger pull - one bullet". Is that correct?

Semi-automatic is one trigger pull one bullet. Those are not illegal and in fact are quite popular.
What makes it semi-automatic is the action of the gun auto loads the next round. So well made guns can basically be fired as fast as the trigger can be pulled
and as long as the next round is in the magazine.

Fully-automatic is one trigger pull many bullets, as long as trigger is pulled. Bursts of bullets per trigger pull.

That is "illegal" for all. With very few exceptions.

So Moto, what's all the fuss about "assault" weapons then? Seems like assault weapons are just rifles made to look bad ass.

gatorfan wrote:

So Moto, what's all the fuss about "assault" weapons then? Seems like assault weapons are just rifles made to look bad ass.

I think it's large capacity magazines as well as the fact that most are easily made into fully-automatic machine guns.

Or are you talking about something else?

motokid wrote:

Or are you talking about something else?

Nope, I got you.

Jäger wrote:

... yes, as a matter of fact these are unalienable rights that you are endowed with by your Creator...

...these rights are not rights we possess because they were bestowed on us by governments. These are not legal rights, instead, these are natural rights and the Constitution merely recognizes their existence....

Wow I haven't heard that opinion before. Please illuminate for me. What is the basis for stating that God ordained the Bill of Rights? Is it an interpretation of the Bible? Some other text? The preamble to the Constitution states that "we the people" ... "hereby ordain" the document.

I would also be interested to know what is the basis for the statement that the Bill of Rights are Natural Rights. Once again I don't think the Constitution states that, or the ammendments.

The Constitution specifically gives a procedure for ammending itself. Nowhere does it say that there are certain clauses that can't be or should not be ammended. So what is the authority that states we can't change the Bill of Rights?

TOP TEN REASONS MEN PREFER GUNS OVER WOMEN:



#10 - You can trade an old 44 for a new 22.
#9 - You can keep one gun at home and have another for when you're on the road.
#8 - If you admire a friend's gun and tell him so, he will probably let you try it
out a few times.
#7 - Your primary gun doesn't mind if you keep another gun for a backup.
#6 - Your gun will stay with you even if you run out of ammo.
#5 - A gun doesn't take up a lot of closet space.
#4 - Guns function normally every day of the month.
#3 - A gun doesn't ask, "Do these new grips make me look fat?"
#2 - A gun doesn't mind if you go to sleep after you use it.
And the Number One reason why Men Prefer Guns over women...



#1 - You can buy a silencer for a gun.

gatorfan wrote:

I have a Q:

Are "fully automatic" weapons illegal everywhere in the US (with narrow exceptions)? The "automatic" weapons people have are modified such that it is .... "one trigger pull - one bullet". Is that correct?

No, it is not correct, although some who think themselves knowledgeable on this will tell you it is.

Fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal in the US, except in the more Marxist oriented jurisdictions of the country. In fact, machine gun displays like Knob Hill are quite popular.

Should you possess a deep urge to waste money going through large amounts of ammunition rapidly, and large amounts of time cleaning the damned things afterward (something every soldier has vivid memories of), you can purchase any machine gun you find for sale as long as you meet the following criteria:
1. Be a US Citizen at least 21 years old
2. Not be prohibited by law from possessing ANY firearm.
3.Pay a one time $200.00 Federal Transfer Tax on each weapon at the time of purchase.
6. Fill out BATF Form 4 and submit to ATF.
7. Have your fingerprints/photographs taken and submitted to BATF with the above application.

Assuming the FBI doesn't discover when looking at your fingerprints and photographs that you aren't somebody like Obama's buddy, convicted terrorist Bill Ayers, you'll have your machine gun shortly afterwards.

Incidentally, with BATF saying there are about 250,000 fully automatic, tax stamped machine guns in civilian hands in the US, to date there is only one record of such a firearm being used in a murder. In other words, the guy next door who owns a BATF taxed machine gun is far less likely to kill you than the guy on the other side with his death-dealing car.

Which leads one to wonder about the sanity of those running around dropping their guts over the idea of a citizen buying a machine gun just as easily as they would buy any other firearm.

Furthermore, I can't think of a single automatic firearm which is a modified version of a semiautomatic firearm. And most semiautomatic firearms are not "easily converted" to fully automatic - unless you consider some involved work in a machine shop to be "easily converted". If you've got that kind of a shop/skills, it would be much easier to simply crank out replicas of the Sten and Stirling submachine guns - much less work.

The violent criminals who have decided they want automatic weapons (and thank God Hollywood has influenced them to go with Hollywood guns instead of the much, much more lethal sawed off shotgun) don't go to the BATF, they get their automatic weapons the same way they get their drugs - mostly, they smuggle them.

IndigoWolf wrote:

motokid wrote:

To think about it further, how fucking outrageous would things have to become here for our own military, which is 100% voluntary, to attack and fight against it's own people?

We are not North Korea or China.

No we are not... but a man named Hitler did just that... All it took was a charismatic leader to direct blame and create an outcast community that quickly becomes the source of all things wrong. Yes, it is outrageous... but it can happen. History shows that one of the first acts to control a populace is to remove their ability to defend them selves with modern (at the time) weapons. Various leaders through out history took this tact ... pre roman times to present, including Hitler. Our founding fathers recognized this fact and gave us a constitution and bill of rights to strengthen and protect the people from such a tyranny. It is obvious, although our country is well over 230 years old that dictators and tyrants have tried and succeeded to subdue nations with "gun control" as a tool to keep the people from defending themselves from such an outrageous event. The Second Amendment is key to ensuring our country's freedoms and liberty. Protecting us from a leader aspiring to such a position as supreme position. The Second Amendment is as valid today as it was when first written.

great points.. sometimes we in the 'modern era' don't think history will repeat itself.. like we are so wise & advanced intellectually. But across the world there are tyrants & dictators constantly coming into power.. it can happen in 'civilized' countries, too.

mucker wrote:

rydnseek wrote:

I don't get why the left wants open borders.. no citizenship? No country? No other nation does that, why should we? Or is that a simplistic generalization, like saying the right is just bigoted?

I'm not convinced that is what the left wants.

Though I do think the left is looking out for everyone, more so, in their own perverted way, whomever they are...more so than the right, which appears to be looking out for the team, at the expense of everyone else. Typical aggressive teamwork, as most jocks...excuse me...popular athletes are trained. Very effective for the team, mind you.

So you're saying the left is global in their outlook, agenda, & ideology, while the right is more national? I think i agree with your assessment, though i don't think the left's plan is very good for the us.. or canada for that matter. Almost all other nations are looking out for themselves, with little regard for the other nations, except for treaties & agreements, which are broken regularly. It seems like we do all the giving, the rest of the world does all the taking... from a national govt perspective, anyway. Why don't we look after ourselves a little better? We cannot afford to police the world, & why should we anyway?

dhally wrote:

As far as arguing solutions, I have some thoughts along those lines.

Government
1. Strong term limits for Congress and problaby state Legistlature as well.

2. Radical campaign finance reform. I hate the idea of campaigns being paid by the federal government from taxes, but it would be one solution. The other would be to allow individual contributions only, with a low limit, like 10 percent of the poverty income level.

3. If the above 2 don't work, we should consider changing to a parlimentary government.

4. And for good measure, lets not give corporations the same rights as individuals. That just plain gives too much power to a small group of people (board of directors/executives).

I believe the above changes would bring government back towards the will of the people.

I like some of these ideas. Term limits & campaign reform definitely need to be addressed. I think we can tweak things well enough so we don't have to scrap the whole system.

I've not understood the hysteria about corporations.. they have been around for centuries, & have regulations to comply with. It seems to me they are a handy scapegoat for the politicians to blame national problems on. What did Home depot do to plunge us into debt? How has Safeway caused our problems in the middle east? The us corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world.. why continue hammering them? No, i think this is a leftist/statist ruse, to get the public's attention off of their impossible agenda.

Quote :

Gun Control
I personally wouldn't mind some effective gun control, although I don't feel strongly. If the majority wants gun control, here is what I think would work:

1. First, the USA would stop being the largest arms exporter in the world. If we are going to control guns at home we should stop spreading wars around the rest of the world first. Not to mention the moral implications of being the world's arm dealer. So I would suggest prohibiting ALL weapons and ammunition exportation. No warplanes, bombs, artillery, Hummers, mortars, mines, and no firearms. Period.

2. Second, we would prohibit the manufacture and sale of ammunition and bullets. We could make some for our military and armed forces, but it would be strictly limited to those uses. And don't forget the Militia could have well-regulated ammunition too. Manufacture and sale of automated ammunition fabrication equipment would be prohibited as well. If you want ammo, you hand load it. One at a time. And cast your own bullets.

I'll admit I haven't thought this all the way through, but is seems like after our ammo stockpile was gone, the USE of firearms would slow way down. The bad guys' firepower would be cut by orders of magnitude. But the homeowner could still have a couple of clips full "just in case."

1. So we stop american companies from making arms or ammunition.. won't this kill the us arms industry? Other countries would love that. They would lose some major competition.. i assume we are talking about rifles & handguns. This would not stop the proliferation of arms worldwide, just kill the already feeble american industry. But i am with you in stopping wars.. i'm more ron paul about bringing the troops home, & cutting back on the meddling worldwide. We should not support these tyrants, give them weapons, or any aid. I don't think we should give any aid to any country. We're broke! How can we?

2. Sounds like prohibition. Substitute 'liquor' for ammunition & you'll see what i mean. The result would be like prohibition, too, i think. The gangsters & drug lords will continue smuggling them, & the prices will go up for regular citizens. But the criminals will still have plenty of ammo & guns. All honest citizens will have to either buy on the black market, like they did during prohibition, or be unarmed. We cannot control the rest of the world & their production.. we can't even stop pot from coming into the country.

Jäger wrote:

The right to arms was affirmed previous to the EBR by earlier constitutional documents. For ALL English citizens. A Catholic king had just disarmed Protestants, negating that right. The EBR restored that right BUT it didn't remove that right from Catholics. Look at the comment about religion as being the equivalent of the reference to militias in the Second.

Check out the original ebr.. here's a link:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction

It was primarily a religious freedom document.. the papists were treating the protestants unfairly (that's putting it mildly). This was an 'agreement' that the monarchy had to agree to to appease the growing reformation sentiment, & fueled the emergence of the church of england as a protestant state, independent of rome. I assume you're talking about the 'petition of right' of 1627 having a right to arms clause, but i couldn't find it in the original.

I have no doubt that it's reach extended beyond the immediate religious tone, but that is also why it could be 'reinterpreted' later on to mean whatever the current rulers wanted.

The first part outlined the problems.. this is just the 'arms' section:

Disarming Protestants, &c.

By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.

The second was the agreement.. what the king would abide by:

Subjects’ Arms.

That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

It seems to me this is more of an anti-discrimination clause.. If the papists could be armed, so should the protestants. It would be unfair of the king to let the papists be armed but forbid the protestants.

The american framers did not make a distinction.. they had already provided for religious freedom, now they wanted to make sure arms were included.. the american people could not have this right infringed. The wording is simple & direct, which is why the anti gun crowd has so much trouble with it.

It is interesting that the original has not been amended or changed over time, & it is still in force in great britain, as well as much of the commonwealth. The Petition of rights, & the statute of westminster of 1275 are also.. pretty interesting stuff. It is very good, i think, to see ourselves in an historical line, rather than just suddenly appearing on the planet, like so many seem to think.

The history that seems to be repeating itself is religious bigotry & intolerance. Gingrich said it last night in his victory speech, & i think i agree. Constitutional freedom is under fire, as it always is, & the american citizens cannot sit idly by & watch it diluted. But that's another thread.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Thomas Jefferson

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Samuel Adams

dhally wrote:

Jäger wrote:

... yes, as a matter of fact these are unalienable rights that you are endowed with by your Creator...

...these rights are not rights we possess because they were bestowed on us by governments. These are not legal rights, instead, these are natural rights and the Constitution merely recognizes their existence....

Wow I haven't heard that opinion before. Please illuminate for me. What is the basis for stating that God ordained the Bill of Rights? Is it an interpretation of the Bible? Some other text? The preamble to the Constitution states that "we the people" ... "hereby ordain" the document.

I would also be interested to know what is the basis for the statement that the Bill of Rights are Natural Rights. Once again I don't think the Constitution states that, or the ammendments.

The Constitution specifically gives a procedure for ammending itself. Nowhere does it say that there are certain clauses that can't be or should not be ammended. So what is the authority that states we can't change the Bill of Rights?

I'm sure you'll get other responses to this, but i'll just quote a bit of the declaration of independence.

This is still one of the most amazing documents ever written.. i am amazed at it's continued relevance.. unlike many old treatises, which are more temporal & local in their scope. My maternal grandmother (a houston from texas) had me memorize it early in my childhood (4 or 5). I didn't really get it then, but at some point the light came on & i 'got it'.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

rydnseek wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

I agree that the Declaration of Independence is inspirational and expresses a very attractive philosophy. However I still don't see that the Founders were claiming that God ordained the Constitution or even the Declaration.

The first highlighted words are a statement of philosophy which justifies the actions they are about to undertake. The second highlighted phrase specifies that governments derive their power from the PEOPLE. It doesn't say derived from God. It doesn't say the form of government or any specifc laws IN THEMSELVES are ordained by God. In fact it goes on to say that people have the right to change the form and principles of government.

I fully support the Constitution, and I believe that it can and should be changed if the people feel it is more likely to effect their safety and happiness.

I have no problem with others disagreeing, and wanting to keep the Constitution the way it is, but I still don't see the basis for the argument that the specific clauses of the Constitution are "inalienable and natural."

dhally wrote:

rydnseek wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

I agree that the Declaration of Independence is inspirational and expresses a very attractive philosophy. However I still don't see that the Founders were claiming that God ordained the Constitution or even the Declaration.

The first highlighted words are a statement of philosophy which justifies the actions they are about to undertake. The second highlighted phrase specifies that governments derive their power from the PEOPLE. It doesn't say derived from God. It doesn't say the form of government or any specifc laws IN THEMSELVES are ordained by God. In fact it goes on to say that people have the right to change the form and principles of government.

I fully support the Constitution, and I believe that it can and should be changed if the people feel it is more likely to effect their safety and happiness.

I have no problem with others disagreeing, and wanting to keep the Constitution the way it is, but I still don't see the basis for the argument that the specific clauses of the Constitution are "inalienable and natural."

It seems pretty straightforward.. the 'self evident' truths are:
1. that men are created equal
2. they are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights, which are:
a. Life
b. Liberty
c. Pursuit of happiness.

This is the premise they are asserting.. the basis for their conclusion:

1. The purpose of govt. is to secure these rights.

Think of it like computer programming.. This is an 'if/then/else' routine.

IF = Men are granted rights by their creator: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness
THEN = Govts are instituted to secure these rights and get their power from the people
ELSE = When govts don't do their job, the people can alter or abolish it & make one that does

I still find this one of the most simple yet revolutionary concepts in human history. It is the basis for america.

Change is inevitable, & is also possible in the us constitution. We've done it many times in our history, so it can be done. Amendments have been altered, added, & repealed. The system works. It is not easy or efficient, perhaps, but the checks & balances protect us from whimsical changes that have not been thought through or debated.

By and large, the founders were religious, as reflected in their times. Many were less so.. prefering the label 'deist'. But they still saw the need to secure religious freedom. For those who are offended by a 'christian' god, jefferson phrased it like this:

"to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them"

So anyone who prefers 'nature' to god can do so easily in the us. The govt secures the religious freedom of the citizenry. It does not 'establish' any particular religion or philosophy. The proliferation of denominations, religious sects, philosophical positions & ideologies show that this freedom has been pretty successful in the us, by and large. Now maybe some do not like all this religious freedom.. or freedom of the press.. or speech.. or allowing citizens to be armed. But unless they can go through the long process of changing the constitution, the rights remain. The bigger danger seems to be when the branches of govt do not follow the constitution. Activist judges limit, infringe, or outlaw our basic rights. Executive orders are given which are not provided for by law, yet the executive branch gets away with it. Congress whimsically passes laws that have no constitutional authority or provision. These are are the real dangers to our constitution. We need to insist on elected officials who will follow the constitution. If they want to change it, fine. Do the work & change it. But this slithering behind the scenes & whittling away at our freedoms is unacceptable.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Lots of good info in this thread. I'm not sure how I missed it when it was relevant. I guess I didn't venture out of the tech-related forums that much.

Anyways............all of this talk about that guns should be regulated like drivers licenses is silly. Having a driver's license is a privilege. Not a constitutional right, like the 2nd Amendment is. Regulations, gun laws, etc, etc, etc, do not prevent crimes, period. Look at some of the areas in the US with the strictest gun control (NYC, DC, Cali for example). The crime rates involving guns are very high, which goes directly against the concept that gun laws somehow prevent crime.

Also, notice how many mass shootings take place in area that are deemed "gun free zones"? Why? Because criminals don't pay attention to those signs. Only law abiding folks do, and where does that leave you? Defenseless. That's where.

Roger Ebert (the movie critic) wrote an article for the NY Post (I believe) after the theater shooting in Colorado recently. He's very anti-gun, and he let that cloud his thoughts and he made himself look silly. He said in his article, something along the lines of "Concealed carry doesn't work. Not one person in that theater shot back at the shooter". (I'm paraphrasing)

.....................but Mr. Ebert didn't bother looking up that chain of theaters' policies. If he did, he would have known that they do NOT allow concealed carry in their properties. So of course, the law abiding folks who carry legally either leave their carry gun in the car, or at home, while they go to watch a movie in that theater. Meanwhile, someone who's intent on doing harm is of course going to ignore that sign.

Odd how that works, huh?