A civil discourse on the 2nd amendment

[MARIS61]

The words "well regulated" might be a clue..

Those words refer to our military, for obvious reasons.

Funny how few people understand plain English, and the concept of Freedom.

 

[Denny Crane]

Are the rights being infringed to not allow felons to own guns?

And does requiring registration infringe on ownership, it doesn't stop the purchase, just allows the govt to understand the flow of weapons and know what weapons people had access to when crimes are committed.

Shall not be infringed. Imagine the stink if people actually had to produce can ID to vote!

 

[MARIS61]

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.

There is only 1 comma, after the word State.

 

[maxiep]

So I'm not arguing yet, I need to think more on the subject, but, where are those lines? If nukes is a no brainer for disallowing, and a musket is a no brainer to be allowed, where is that line?

My position is whatever the police have, I should be able to have.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

There is only 1 comma, after the word State.

Good contribution and impact on the overall conversation

Thank you for stating your piece.

 

[Further]

The current background check form asks if you are a felon, as it should. The best way to keep felons from having guns is to put them in jail for a long time when they are caught with a gun, or lie about being a felon on the background check. Mandatory. Every time. Hard time.

seems to me understanding where and how the criminals got their guns would also help the situation. I do agree penalties should be higher when a felon is caught with a firearm, but getting those guns into the law abiding hands and away from criminals should also be a focus, and that means registration and tracking.

Once your gun is registered, government can come take it at whatever time they choose. Imo, that is a realistic concern.

Government doesn't need to know the flow of weapons or what kind of weapons you own. If you have a constitutional right to possess them, it's none of their business.

Go Blazers

As someone else mentioned, you registrar your car, is the govt coming to take that? With 300,000,000 guns in the US, the government is just not going to come take guns from law abiding citizens. Americans would never stand for it, the police would never comply. It just isn't happening.

But we might be able to figure out how to make sure you, a legal owner, have all the guns you want, and the criminals have fewer.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

My position is whatever the police have, I should be able to have.

We've always had open access to donuts. We just don't get to eat them on company time like the police do.

 

[Masbee]

Dont forget this important element, the courts have ruled you have no right to police protection.

You cannot demand it and you cannot sue if it is not provided.

Legally, you are on your own.

This is in direct conflict with those who would restrict the rights of self defense.

 

[MarAzul]

Dont forget this important element, the courts have ruled you have no right to police protection.

You cannot demand it and you cannot sue if it is not provided.

Legally, you are on your own.

This is in direct conflict with those who would restrict the rights of self defense.

Spot on Masbee.

 

[Natebishop3]

It's always been pretty obvious to me that the intention of the second amendment was to keep the populace armed in case the government ever got to big for its britches. The Brits tried to disarm the populace before the Revolutionary War. The founders understood that the only way to keep the government honest is to keep the populace armed.

A militia is not part of the government. A militia is a group of regular people. It could be any group of regular people. To claim that the National Guard is a "well regulated militia" is ridiculous. They train with the US Military, they are deployed with the US Military overseas, and they wear uniforms that say, "US Army" on their blouse. They are basically just an arm of our military, so anyone who claims that they fulfill the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment is wrong.

 

[RR7]

Have a good look at Arab Spring. Guys with rifles and IEDs taking out governments with $billions in advanced weapons. We didn't do so hot in Vietnam or Afghanistan, I don't think we'd do so well in Ohio.

You've made this argument a few times in these threads, and every time it is rather ridiculous. Arab Spring, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. were not fought or defended strictly with what would legally fall under the rights of the 2nd amendment so it's a pointless defense of it.

 

[Natebishop3]

You've made this argument a few times in these threads, and every time it is rather ridiculous. Arab Spring, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. were not fought or defended strictly with what would legally fall under the rights of the 2nd amendment so it's a pointless defense of it.

Nor would another American Revolution, but you can't confiscate military weaponry with spit balls and pitch forks, can you?

 

[RR7]

Nor would another American Revolution, but you can't confiscate military weaponry with spit balls and pitch forks, can you?

I agree that it wouldn't be. That it'd immediately escalate to explosives and what not. Well, really, I don't see a civilian army turning on the populace, but that's irrelevant. In order to actually fight and stand a chance, illegal items would be needed. So if the point is defense against an out of control government, and you recognize that we'd need more than standard issue guns, why not make it legal to possess things that would actually give you a chance?

 

[Denny Crane]

I agree that it wouldn't be. That it'd immediately escalate to explosives and what not. Well, really, I don't see a civilian army turning on the populace, but that's irrelevant. In order to actually fight and stand a chance, illegal items would be needed. So if the point is defense against an out of control government, and you recognize that we'd need more than standard issue guns, why not make it legal to possess things that would actually give you a chance?

It seems to me the IEDs and asymmetric kinds of warfare is difficult for advanced militaries to deal with. British/Revolutionary war was a long time ago, but our guys getting blown up by IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan is the modern day equivalent. Look at the Boston Marathon bombing - guys used LEGAL stuff to improvise bombs that killed and maimed scores of people. That was 2 guys. Imagine 2M guys (in California, say).

There was the case of the British and the Falklands. The British sent over the most modern of battleship type naval vessels. The Falklanders flew biplanes. The biplanes were just too slow for the advanced AA guns on the modern ships to track. Or so I remember from the news back then. And the british actually had ships sunk by the forces of an island with a population of about 3,000.

FWIW

 

[RR7]

It seems to me the IEDs and asymmetric kinds of warfare is difficult for advanced militaries to deal with. British/Revolutionary war was a long time ago, but our guys getting blown up by IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan is the modern day equivalent. Look at the Boston Marathon bombing - guys used LEGAL stuff to improvise bombs that killed and maimed scores of people. That was 2 guys. Imagine 2M guys (in California, say).

There was the case of the British and the Falklands. The British sent over the most modern of battleship type naval vessels. The Falklanders flew biplanes. The biplanes were just too slow for the advanced AA guns on the modern ships to track. Or so I remember from the news back then. And the british actually had ships sunk by the forces of an island with a population of about 3,000.

FWIW

uh huh, none of that relevant to what I said, or the 2nd amendment.

 

[Denny Crane]

You've made this argument a few times in these threads, and every time it is rather ridiculous. Arab Spring, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. were not fought or defended strictly with what would legally fall under the rights of the 2nd amendment so it's a pointless defense of it.

This is what you said, and what I responded to.

I don't think that fertilizer and other IED making materials are necessarily illegal.

Boots on the ground simply hasn't worked well for us. I'd think it would work even less well for us in our own homeland against our population which is most advanced in the world and knows the lay of the land.

 

[Natebishop3]

This is what you said, and what I responded to.

I don't think that fertilizer and other IED making materials are necessarily illegal.

Boots on the ground simply hasn't worked well for us. I'd think it would work even less well for us in our own homeland against our population which is most advanced in the world and knows the lay of the land.

Actually, you're also forgetting that Vietnam, Korea, etc were fought with materials brought in by outside countries such as Russia, China, and the United States. The North Vietnamese wouldn't have been able to do shit without China, and Afghanistan wouldn't have been able to do shit against the USSR without our stingers. I suspect, if there was ever an uprising in the US, there would be outside help for American citizens as well.

 

[Denny Crane]

Actually, you're also forgetting that Vietnam, Korea, etc were fought with materials brought in by outside countries such as Russia, China, and the United States. The North Vietnamese wouldn't have been able to do shit without China, and Afghanistan wouldn't have been able to do shit against the USSR without our stingers. I suspect, if there was ever an uprising in the US, there would be outside help for American citizens as well.

Quite possibly. We do have 300M privately owned guns, though.

Another way to look at it is we have about 2.5M in the military, according to our commitment to NATO. If you look at military/population vs. police/population, it's about the same. If every one of our military men/women were brought here from Germany, japan, Korea, and every other place they're stationed, would they be able to handle many many times the violence and "crime" that the police do?

 

[Further]

Quite possibly. We do have 300M privately owned guns, though.

Another way to look at it is we have about 2.5M in the military, according to our commitment to NATO. If you look at military/population vs. police/population, it's about the same. If every one of our military men/women were brought here from Germany, japan, Korea, and every other place they're stationed, would they be able to handle many many times the violence and "crime" that the police do?

300M firearms, but a couple things to pay attention to. How many people own those guns, If a person has a collection of 500 guns, but only he and his wife will use them, than the # that matters is 2, not 500. Also, how many of those 300M guns are usable in this type of situation, how many would be brought to battle. So, is a 22 pistol going to be used in this type of movement? What about old guns from the civil war? What about guns that have not been maintained or were shitty to begin with, that can't be trusted. And lastly, firearms are only one component, the other is ammo. Sure, some preppers have 10,000 rounds, but most people have a limited supply. And you can bet that the first thing the govt would do would be to take control of ammo manufacturing and pipelines. It's not like the old black powder days when you could easily just make up a suitable round.

Still, I agree the number of gun owners with guns and with substantial ammo is enough to put up a fight, but considering the limited firepower, no tanks, no planes, no specialty weapons.... I think the fight would be heavily in the favor of the Military.

The one possible caveat to that is I believe much of our military would refuse to pick up arms against it's populous, especially on a massive scale.

 

[Denny Crane]

I agree that many in the military would refuse to pick up arms against us. I suspect nobody (or very few) in the reserves would report if called up.

The government does hire lots of mercenaries, and I bet they'd all do what they get paid to do.

I'm being purely hypothetical about the govt. at full strength vs. the people.

There's a flipside to this, too. As with the Revolution, many people might side with the government and many might side with the rebels.

 

[MarAzul]

I agree that many in the military would refuse to pick up arms against us. I suspect nobody (or very few) in the reserves would report if called up.

The government does hire lots of mercenaries, and I bet they'd all do what they get paid to do.

I'm being purely hypothetical about the govt. at full strength vs. the people.

There's a flipside to this, too. As with the Revolution, many people might side with the government and many might side with the rebels.

It has happened.

http://www.dailypaul.com/97314/federal-troops-attack-veterans-marching-in-dc

 

[Denny Crane]

It has happened, sure.

In an all out civil war? Not so sure which side anyone would be on.

But I don't think this is really talking to the 2nd.

 

[oldguy]

Sure, because we know criminals are deterred by prison terms, that's why there is so little crime and so few people in prison.

If a felon goes to prison for 3-5 years for possessing a firearm, they are not committing gun crime on the populace for those 3-5 years, no? If they get out and and are caught again with a firearm they go away even longer. Of course, they may have to quit filling up the prisons with people charged with marijuana offenses to make room for the felons.

Imo, that's about as realistic as saying that once your car is registered, government can come take it at whatever time they choose.

Could you provide a list of politicians that say they want to take our cars? (Not to mention that there is no constitutional right to keep and drive a car, which shall not be infringed.)

Big if.

barfo

Not really. The second amendment provides that right.

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

The police confiscate cars and boats and the like when performing drug related arrests. The WWW is full of sites about them being auctioned.

I happen to think the drug laws are BS and are just an excuse to jail certain people unfairly.

In California, they were confiscating cars if they were old and not smogged well.

 

[oldguy]

seems to me understanding where and how the criminals got their guns would also help the situation. I do agree penalties should be higher when a felon is caught with a firearm, but getting those guns into the law abiding hands and away from criminals should also be a focus, and that means registration and tracking.

Well except that felons are not getting their guns legally, so how does registering guns help track them? Do you really think that a felon will register their gun, when doing so would cause them to go to prison? Seriously?

The Brady Bunch has made it clear that they will take any incremental additional control they can get, then go after more. Once we agree to let them infringe on our 2nd amendment right via registration, what keeps them from coming after the guns after the next mass murder?

As someone else mentioned, you registrar your car, is the govt coming to take that? With 300,000,000 guns in the US, the government is just not going to come take guns from law abiding citizens. Americans would never stand for it, the police would never comply. It just isn't happening.

Again, please provide a list of politicians and organizations that want to take our cars.

The government doesn't have to go door to door to come get the guns. They would first pass a law making possession a felony, with a big-time sentence. Then they would give you a short time to turn in your weapons. When you turn in your weapons, they keep tabs of who did that, and compare it to that big-ass data base in Utah to see who had registered guns that didn't turn them in. Then they come with SWAT teams to take the guns, and arrest the felons. I don't understand how this is to hard to wrap your head around.

As I've said before, it's great that you don't think they will come after the guns. It's also great that you don't want them to come after the guns. But, if they decide they want all the guns, they really won't give two shits about what you thought they should do. And, you telling me, after they confiscate my guns, "Gee, sorry, I didn't think they would do that" really wouldn't help much.

But we might be able to figure out how to make sure you, a legal owner, have all the guns you want, and the criminals have fewer.

If you can figure a way to do that without infringing on my rights, or endangering my rights, I'm down. People that endanger my right to defend myself from bad guys and/or government run amuck, quite literally, are the enemy.

Go Blazers

 

[oldguy]

The police confiscate cars and boats and the like when performing drug related arrests. The WWW is full of sites about them being auctioned.

I happen to think the drug laws are BS and are just an excuse to jail certain people unfairly.

In California, they were confiscating cars if they were old and not smogged well.

Yeah, I get all that, but is anyone suggesting that citizens should not own cars, because so many people are killed by them?

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

I lived in a house once that had an NRA sticker on the window next to the front door.

I debated whether to leave it or take it down.

Leave it? The bad guys think I have a gun and would risk getting shot for breaking in.

Remove it? The bad guys won't break into my house looking to steal my gun/s.

How do the bad guys get their guns...

 

[Denny Crane]

Yeah, I get all that, but is anyone suggesting that citizens should not own cars, because so many people are killed by them?

Go Blazers

They pollute and don't sport solar panels.

 

[oldguy]

Dont forget this important element, the courts have ruled you have no right to police protection.

You cannot demand it and you cannot sue if it is not provided.

Legally, you are on your own.

This is in direct conflict with those who would restrict the rights of self defense.

What, you can't defend yourself against a couple of young 250 lb thugs with your fly swatter?

Go Blazers

 

[oldguy]

300M firearms, but a couple things to pay attention to. How many people own those guns, If a person has a collection of 500 guns, but only he and his wife will use them, than the # that matters is 2, not 500. Also, how many of those 300M guns are usable in this type of situation, how many would be brought to battle. So, is a 22 pistol going to be used in this type of movement? What about old guns from the civil war? What about guns that have not been maintained or were shitty to begin with, that can't be trusted. And lastly, firearms are only one component, the other is ammo. Sure, some preppers have 10,000 rounds, but most people have a limited supply. And you can bet that the first thing the govt would do would be to take control of ammo manufacturing and pipelines. It's not like the old black powder days when you could easily just make up a suitable round.

Still, I agree the number of gun owners with guns and with substantial ammo is enough to put up a fight, but considering the limited firepower, no tanks, no planes, no specialty weapons.... I think the fight would be heavily in the favor of the Military.

The one possible caveat to that is I believe much of our military would refuse to pick up arms against it's populous, especially on a massive scale.

So the gun owners with 500 guns couldn't distribute them to people that don't have one?

A 22 works just fine, and you can carry, literally, thousands of rounds in a backpack. You just have to place your shots, and from fairly short range.

If the government wants to change your status the same as Brian's current status, and government has the advantage, you just want to role over?