Had Enough

[Chase 303]

 

Thanks for sharing this. Many more need to see this.

 

 

 

A few handguns and/or rifles in the back room aren't going be any help against an out of control government. IMHO, that argument doesn't fly. It might have 200 years ago...

 

My collection alone, maybe not. But 200 million guns is a lot of firepower.

[brant 12]

A few handguns and/or rifles in the back room aren't going be any help against an out of control government. IMHO, that argument doesn't fly. It might have 200 years ago...

 

+1.

 

 

 

but at least i've got something that'll stop a crackhead. i think. B)

[Great Ozzie 101]

A few handguns and/or rifles in the back room aren't going be any help against an out of control government

 

Well... 300 Million is more than "a few"... and idk... maybe need to talk to some Syrians about that and get their opinion.

[razorhog703 15]

My collection alone, maybe not. But 200 million guns is a lot of firepower.

 

AGREED! 100%

 

I'll add that my collection plus yours in addition to people like-minded is powerful enough.

[brant 12]

Thanks for sharing this. Many more need to see this.

 

 

 

My collection alone, maybe not. But 200 million guns is a lot of firepower.

 

i don't know. the syrians are having a hell of a time, and probably would've already been slaughtered without outside assistance.

 

 

and have you seen an apache helicopter? our government has those . . . .

[HighTowers 1,434]

Living in Canada I would not expect you to fully understand my post. Even so I welcome the discussion. I choose to conceal carry when I go with my wife and child to the movie theater and I guarantee that if I were in the theater at that time the tradegy would have been significantly different.

 

Ok. That makes me feel a lot better going to theater with my kid in the States. I just hope that it doesnt come down to more killings for people to get this. And for sure I hope its none of your family members or friends when you are not around.

 

Yea I guess we Canadians dont get it. Sure there is no such thing as no violence, and you cant eliminate it completely as the gangs and criminal organizations will always find a way to smuggle stuff in, but its alot safer here knowing that nearly all if not all is not carrying a gun of any sort on them.

 

Please be safe.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

That is actually incorrect and the Supreme Court ruled the same.

 

Remember the 2nd was written in older English style that does not follow current grammar standards. The commas actually break the amendment into separate thoughts.

 

"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."

 

So the 2nd allows for a well regulated militia to be formed. Which is necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms. Shall not be infringed.

 

The 2nd clearly allows for individuals to own arms and form a militia if needed to secure the free state. Constitutional scholars and the SC agree on this. Thus Chicago's ban on all guns was overturned as being unconstitutional.

 

As the ban should have been overturned. I don't disagree with people having the right to bear arms, but clearly the framers of the amendment had a larger ideal in mind and they did not envision the firepower out there today. I strongly disagree with automatic weapons being out there on the streets. There is no reason for anyone to be armed to that extent, outside of local law enforcement or the state national guard (the closest thing to a well regulated militia I can think of). Where does it end. A nuclear weapon is an arm, a guided missile is an arm. Does the second amendment guarantee the right to bear either?

 

We think of our nation being founded out of perfection, yet remember those constitutional rights did not apply to the millions who were enslaved at the time of the constitution's framing. So right from the beginning, the rights in the constitution were infringed. Fortunately we're evolving, trying to become a better nation and the constitution is probably the best document for governing a nation there is. In the process of trying to understand those rights, mistakes will be made. I wish I had the answers instead of just my opionions--as such I don't think I am of much help in this thread, other than the help I give myself by stating how I feel.

 

John

[avgaskoolaid 292]

Article II: 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

 

The second amendment means exactly what it says; the people have the right to form a militia and have the right to have weapons to arm that militia in order to protect it from the government if it were to become tyrannical. However, you need to take it into context. The revolutionary war had just been fought, and Americans were deathly afraid of big government. This article was 100% necessary in 1789. However, fast forward to 2013 and you can see that it has become less necessary.

Firstly, the government is not made up of one anti-public group that would become a dictatorship at the first given opportunity. You have the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches (with a system of checks and balances) as well as the military, 50 different state governments, and hundreds of sub-branches. And all of these branches are made up of people with morals, values and ethics. They simply would not decide one day to enslave the people if they were disarmed.

Secondly, the Military is also made up of people who are most assuredly not government goons. Those in the military also have a greater sense of national pride and a stronger set of morals than most civilians. If there was suddenly a plan to take total control of the country by force, very,very few service men and women would go along with it (if any at all).

Thirdly, if ,for some reason, every person in the government wanted to change it from a democracy to a dictatorship, they would have done so already. Why would they be concerned by a public with handguns, rifles, and assault weapons when they have the might of the American Armed Forces to back them up (assuming that they could get the armed forces to join them in their efforts)?

 

With all that being said, I believe in the right for all Americans to own weapons such as handguns and hunting rifles provided that they are properly registered.. However, I believe that high-powered assault weapons are unnecessary.

[razorhog703 15]

and have you seen an apache helicopter? our government has those . . . .

 

Surprisingly, people who believe in a cause will go where they choose. Please see below.

 

Such early successes made Robert E. Lee a leading candidate to command Union forces against the South once it decided to secede. Reluctant to engage in a war against the South, Lee turned down an offer of command of the Union forces. On April 18, 1861, the Virginia Secession Convention, made up of the state's ruling elite, voted to join the Southern states in secession. As practical issues, Lee did not oppose either slavery or secession. Although he felt slavery in the abstract was a bad thing, he blamed the national conflict on abolitionists, and accepted the pro-slavery policies of the Confederacy. He chose to fight to defend his homeland.

 

He resigned from the army he had served for 36 years, and accepted the command of Virginia's forces.

[brant 12]

Surprisingly, people who believe in a cause will go where they choose. Please see below.

 

Such early successes made Lee a leading candidate to command Union forces against the South once it decided to secede. Reluctant to engage in a war against the South, Lee turned down an offer of command of the Union forces. On April 18, 1861, the Virginia Secession Convention, made up of the state's ruling elite, voted to join the Southern states in secession. As practical issues, Lee did not oppose either slavery or secession. Although he felt slavery in the abstract was a bad thing, he blamed the national conflict on abolitionists, and accepted the pro-slavery policies of the Confederacy. He chose to fight to defend his homeland.

 

He resigned from the army he had served for 36 years, and accepted the command of Virginia's forces.

 

 

 

i'm in Georgia, so, no history lesson needed. lol.

 

 

i see your point, and can only hope such leaders in the military still exist if need be.

[JohnFromCO 15]

Right to arms? Yes. Assault weapons that fire 400 shots/min? No.

 

I think you might be a little confused by the use of assault rifle in its traditional meaning (selective fire) and the modern political form of assault rifle. The 400 rounds per min (rpm) would be fully automatic. The incorrect political and media use of "assault rifle" which is now being called "military style" rifle is a semi-auto with collapsible stock, pistol grip, and bayonet lug. So a round would still leave the barrel with every pull of the trigger.

 

A semi-auto AR-15 might get you up to 80 rpm if you are a skilled shooter who maintains his equipment. Most semi-auto AR-15's on the market start having issues if you exceed 45-50 rpm. Far off from the civilian AR-15's big brother the M16A2 or M4 which can have a cycle rate of 800 rpm. These are highly restricted for civilians and require extensive background checks by the ATF, registration with local PD, and a stamp tax. They are also tens of thousands of dollars.

 

Rapid fire of civilian military looking semi-auto rifles, like the AR-15, has a tendency to cause jams, failure to fire, or failure to eject events. The AR-15 used in Aurora jammed due to rapid fire and being used with a drum magazine which the gun is not designed to do. Most people don't realize that many AR-15's built today are not built to military semi-auto specifications. They look like their military counterpart and have the basic design but not the internal features. They are not fully automatic or burst fire weapons either.

 

Whether a person needs a semi-auto or even fully automatic rifle is up to that person. If they can pass the ATF background checks set forth and can pay applicable tax than that is their right. I do feel military style semi-auto rifles should get more scrutiny compared to shotguns or bolt-actions but an ill-informed ban is not the answer and has proven ineffective in the past.

 

Extensive background checks with licensing would appear to be the best approach.

[razorhog703 15]

In the words of Patrick Henry:

 

"No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve.This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

 

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?

 

Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

 

I wish this spirit still existed in us today.

[metalmike 34]

What's ironic is that the worst mass shooting I can remember happened in Norway, of all places. And even Colombine happened while an Assault Weapons Ban was in place.

 

Another good factual response to the conventional attitude:

 

 

There are tons of things about American culture that affect gun violence. For example when people compare gun violence between the US and, say, the UK as a way to advocate gun control measures, they act like there's no cultural differences that churn out this sort of behavior other than gun control laws. That's just ridiculous.

 

Overall, I wish people would stay away from "constitutional" arguments in opposing stricter gun control and stick to facts instead. I like the intent of the constitution, but it's rarely obeyed by politicians nowadays, and nobody seems to notice or care. People want real-world reasons as to whether or not to allow guns to be circulated, because not everybody has reverence for a 200+ year-old piece of paper. Again, I revere that piece of paper and think it's well-intentioned, but that unfortunately doesn't satisfy peoples' urges to "deal with" problems today. When someone's child dies in a shooting, they want to hear more than just "well...the Constitution!" It's like telling an atheist to believe in God because "the Bible says so".

[JohnFromCO 15]

I strongly disagree with automatic weapons being out there on the streets. There is no reason for anyone to be armed to that extent, outside of local law enforcement or the state national guard (the closest thing to a well regulated militia I can think of).

Automatic weapons are not prevalent or readily accessible. Like others I think you are confused with political term of assault rifles. Full auto, Class 2 weapons, are extremely hard to get due to background checks and availability.

 

Where does it end. A nuclear weapon is an arm, a guided missile is an arm. Does the second amendment guarantee the right to bear either?

 

Silly question but I will bite.

 

Unfortunately several members of the SC has said it may. Scalia has said in interviews he may rule anything that can be carried would be protected but is still undecided.

 

But you have other factors. They will have to be demilitarized to comply with the laws including removal of equipment noted as secret or proprietary. Then the govt would have to sell it to you with a LOA. So you would be buying a useless paperweight essentially. That is how you can buy a shell for a AIM 9 missile or torpedo at surplus stores. Authentic ones have been demilitarized and approved for sale by the military.

 

BTW manufacturing your own would break so many laws, protection under the 2nd wouldn't matter.

[krylite 0]

I hope when the feds come for all the guns, enough state and city governors and people refuse and states secede if necessary. Which would include military bases and such. So a seceding state against the fed takeover could have a bunch of Apache's and F35's and bases as was mentioned. If all else fails of the three branches...