The 2nd Amendment - What does it mean?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tinybear The same way that Americans put their own safety and that of others as subsidiary to their 'right' to engage in certain activities however hazardous they maybe. Rights are paramount. Never mind who dies; we have our rights!!! :)

Thats right, its the law.


Funny how you want to hold everyboody accountable, except my government. Why is it that my government is the only thing that you think should be without limitations?

[tinybear]

Say Milton, do you often ask someone who doesn't agree with you to leave? If you do, that's very bad debating technique.

[Milton Bradley]

This is one of the few times where I actuall jumped the gun, and asked the other person to leave first. More often than not, it is the other way around.


I guess us pro-gun people should just let your side take over the thread, and the country, and the world. I mean, that is what you want, right?


Its clear that none of the points we make are taken seriously, so why bother attempting to debate with you two at all?


Besides, she started the name calling, so I was just going down the road I kew this thread was taking anyway.


So your side should be allowed to attack the ignorant gun loving, wann-be criminals , but we should be mindful of your fellings while you are atticking us, right?


I'll keep that in mind in the future.

[tinybear]

So you 'jumped the gun', eh? Ha! Gotcha!

But seriously, Milton, can you not see that the principal reason for private citizens bearing arms has all been rendered irrelevant and the only effect of leaving the doors of private gun ownership open is to make it easier for criminals to commit violent crimes? I see the point about private citizens feeling unsafe without having weapons for self-protection against criminals, but, look at it this way, this is a circular argument, because it may well be that the crime situation wouldn't be half as bad if our criminal elements are denied their access to firearms. In Canada, many people sleep with their doors unlocked. Why aren't they afraid? Think about it.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tinybear So you 'jumped the gun', eh? Ha! Gotcha! But seriously, Milton, can you not see that the principal reason for private citizens bearing arms has all been rendered irrelevant and the only effect of leaving the doors of private gun ownership open is to make it easier for criminals to commit violent crimes? I see the point about private citizens feeling unsafe without having weapons for self-protection against criminals, but, look at it this way, this is a circular argument, because it may well be that the crime situation wouldn't be half as bad if our criminal elements are denied their access to firearms. In Canada, many people sleep with their doors unlocked. Why aren't they afraid? Think about it.

That is a matter of opinion, and my opinion differs from yours. I know you think you can envision the whole scenario playing out in your mind, but I strongly suspect that you are wrong, and I'm willing to bet on it, and fight for my rights. Plus, I just feel it is common sense to defend your family, and property.


I leave my doors unlocked as well. I feel perfectly safe doing so.


So, what was the point about feeling safe. Oh, thats right, it is just a feeling, and not a law.


So you don't feel safe, and everybody under the Sun should respect that, but I feel persecuted for my beliefs, yet nobody respects that? WTF?

[Sonart]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Thats right, its the law.

No, Milton, it's not. The NRA can keep lying to it's supporters to keep them whipped up politically, but on this board it is uncontested that the highest courts of this land have ruled that we do NOT have an individual right to bear arms. So either prove that it's not, which you can't, or stop saying it.

Quote by: Milton Bradley All they need do is obtain a Class III Firearms license.

Which therefore makes it a privilege, not a right.


.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Milton Bradley The fact is that the overwhelming majority of guns are not used to commit crimes. So what did these inanimate objects do to get locked up?

It isn't the actions, but the POTENTIAL actions of things that cause them to be locked up. Look at nuclear weapons. How many of the thousand of nukes sitting around have ever harmed anyone? But we don't just hand them out because they haven't harmed anyone, but because they *CAN* harm people.

One thing that the gun advocates purposely don't mention is that gun control does not mean gun banning. Very few people want guns completely banned, they just want to control what types of weapons are available to the common citizen and make sure that the common citizen, if they choose to have guns, are responsible with them. That's all.

Again, we reitterate, the guns are necesarry to keep the tyrants from using force against its own citizens. I refuse to give up my right to opt out of the system if it becomes to corrupt.

That's a ludicrous concept. Sorry, but if the government goes 'bad', I don't care how many shotguns you have, you have no chance whatsoever against thousands of trained troops, tanks, aircraft and nuclear weapons. The whole "you'll have to pry my gun from my cold, dead fingers" demonstrates a basic immaturity among many gun-nuts.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Milton Bradley The word "arms" is used in the Second Ammendment. It does not use the word "gun" in any place in that document. Therefore, I believe that the framers of the constitution believed any "arms" necesarry to keep the government in check were legal for the "militia" to keep, and own.

True, but while you're getting all up in arms over the language of the 2nd Amendment, you're not paying any attention to the meaning behind it. At the time it was written, there was no standing army, every single able-bodied white male was required, by law, to come to the defense of their town/state/country in times of emergency and they were required to own and supply their own weapons. You did indeed have people who owned cannons etc. for civil defense.

Now unless you are suggesting that you are a member of the police, National Guard or military; the only three existing legal militias today, and that somehow, the law requires you to provide your own firearm when called for service, you simply have no leg to stand on.

Why would the Feds issue these licenses in the year 2005 if they did not intend for civilians to own these tools?

Actually, most of those weapons are for specialty use only. You can be a weapons collector, you can use them for historical re-enactment, etc. You can't just drive down the road with a cannon mounted to your pickup truck. And anyone holding a Class III license has a TON of restrictions on what they can do, where they can take their weapon and where, if anywhere, they can discharge it.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I really do understand your feelings about this matter, but to think you have the right to disarm the entire populace is insanity. With the passion with which you try to debunk this argument, you might consider moving out of this free country, and into a country with more restrictive laws. I am tired of being the one asked to leave my home by gun hating, fascist, wanns-be dictators. So I figured I would ask you to leave first. Don''t like it, LEAVE! Cuba is just a short boat ride away for you. Oh wait, you prefer Canada, or Europe, those countries are largely disarmed already, so what are you waiting for? Go be with the like minded folks who have already had their rights stripped away by their benevolent, all knowing leaders.

And I'm tired of you Republicans thinking that instituting your fascist beliefs is the direction the country should go in, and that keeping all demented laws is also ideal, or even that it was "meant to be." I'm also tired of you Republicans telling everyone who is not a Republican, to leave this country. This country is not Republican. You Republicans need to rapidly climb down off your hallucinogenic clouds.

I never ask a Republican to leave. However, Republicans tell everyone who isn't Republican to leave. It's getting really tiring you know.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: tinybear In Canada, many people sleep with their doors unlocked. Why aren't they afraid? Think about it.

I have a friend (a doctor) who lives in Canada, in a relatively dense area, and leaves his door unlocked. I've grown so accustomed to the U.S., where one has to lock everything up, that nowadays just thinking of leaving a door open makes me edgy.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I leave my doors unlocked as well. I feel perfectly safe doing so.

So where do you leave your door open? I don't know of any place in the U.S. one can do that, save, maybe some little town population 100 or less.

[abub]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri So where do you leave your door open? I don't know of any place in the U.S. one can do that, save, maybe some little town population 100 or less.

All of the suburbs surrounding cleveland ohio.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Cephus That's a ludicrous concept. Sorry, but if the government goes 'bad', I don't care how many shotguns you have, you have no chance whatsoever against thousands of trained troops, tanks, aircraft and nuclear weapons. The whole "you'll have to pry my gun from my cold, dead fingers" demonstrates a basic immaturity among many gun-nuts.

Check out this thread for some math on citizen disarmament. Some Gun Math

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart No, Milton, it's not. The NRA can keep lying to it's supporters to keep them whipped up politically, but on this board it is uncontested that the highest courts of this land have ruled that we do NOT have an individual right to bear arms. So either prove that it's not, which you can't, or stop saying it. Which therefore makes it a privilege, not a right. .

I guess those permits they issue are just my imagination. Incidently, we all know that the licensing is just for tax puposes, and probably for keeping statistics as well.


I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I guess you missed this point.


Why has the Federal, or State government come asking for individual firearms?


I think the answer is clear. The Second Ammendent.


I know you like to interpret it differently, and that others have arrived at the same conclusion, but the fact is, that conclusion is not consistant with the constitution, and therefore, can't really be imposed on the populace. As much as you hate it, I believe that was, is, and will be the popular opinion in the U.S. for some time to come.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri And I'm tired of you Republicans thinking that instituting your fascist beliefs is the direction the country should go in, and that keeping all demented laws is also ideal, or even that it was "meant to be." I'm also tired of you Republicans telling everyone who is not a Republican, to leave this country. This country is not Republican. You Republicans need to rapidly climb down off your hallucinogenic clouds. I never ask a Republican to leave. However, Republicans tell everyone who isn't Republican to leave. It's getting really tiring you know.

I'm a rugged individualist, a patriot, a Libertarian, and a believer in individual resposibility, and individual rights. I am certainly no Republican. And, yes, I do know how tiring its become. I thought you were about to use the same line on me, becaus, after all, you are far more authoritarian, like our friends the Republicans.


I believe both Democrats, and Republicans need to reevaluate their parties positions, or get the Hell out. Neither party honors the constitution at all, and both commit treason on a regular basis. Traitors!

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri So where do you leave your door open? I don't know of any place in the U.S. one can do that, save, maybe some little town population 100 or less.

I actually live in the city, urban blighted Toledo, Ohio. Metro Toledos population is around 665,000 I believe. We just had a mass exodus with all the manufaturing jobs being outsourced. Sort of looks like Detroit now, a corporate ghost town, with only the services, the empty factories, and warehouses remaining.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Cephus True, but while you're getting all up in arms over the language of the 2nd Amendment, you're not paying any attention to the meaning behind it. At the time it was written, there was no standing army, every single able-bodied white male was required, by law, to come to the defense of their town/state/country in times of emergency and they were required to own and supply their own weapons. You did indeed have people who owned cannons etc. for civil defense. Now unless you are suggesting that you are a member of the police, National Guard or military; the only three existing legal militias today, and that somehow, the law requires you to provide your own firearm when called for service, you simply have no leg to stand on. Actually, most of those weapons are for specialty use only. You can be a weapons collector, you can use them for historical re-enactment, etc. You can't just drive down the road with a cannon mounted to your pickup truck. And anyone holding a Class III license has a TON of restrictions on what they can do, where they can take their weapon and where, if anywhere, they can discharge it.

Perhaps you should investigate what you preach about.


What are the laws about having a standing army?


Why does my government not honor that document?


Why has the War, and Emergency Powers Act, not lapsed, or been repealed since its inception in 1933?


The answer is that the Military Industrial Complex has done just what we were warned to be vigilant against letting happen. They took over.


The link that proves constitutional goverment has ceased as of 1973.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep.html

[Lilith]

Quote by: Milton Bradley We already make attempts to get the guns out of the hands of criminals. Why do you wish to remove the guns from law abiding citizens? There is no logical reason to punish somebody for a crime they did not commit. Even less to punish them for some future crime they would likely never commit. Particularly when both of these concepts go against the philosophies this country was founded on. Individual rights, individual resposibility, and innocent until proven guilty.

Makes sense to me.

[Milton Bradley]

This link goes with that last link.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep1.html

[asterix404]

Libratarians and I gots some serious fun issues. I don't trust people and neither do most indivuilists however I trust the person even less when they are holding any weapon. You can tell me all of your stories about how they protected people however they hurt way more then protect. Sure if someone pulls a knife on you and you have a gun and shoot em... great but this argument has gone so far past that.

When the law was written the automatic weapon wasn't even a dream, the guns that were carried were single shot muskets that a good person could fire 3 rounds in 1 minute. Possibly a pistol that had the same restictions. Melitias were used becasue our standing army was fighting... like.. ya know... a war and coudln't be everywhere at the same time and it turned out to be local village men protecting themselves from an invading army. Also do I fail to mention that this is how they hunted food in woods. They used heuge very inaccurate guns to kill animals that would feed themselves.

I don't think that the creators of the Dec of Indp ever dreamed that even the tommy gun would have been created. That gun alone killed thousands of police officers and the people who bought them, if ya didn't know them, were no different then you or me. So let me ask all you gun people out there cuz this has been bothering me slightly... Guns around where I live are used to kill and hunt and eat dear and other game. Are 50 cal automatic weapons really used for this? Do you need a fully automatic m16 to kill a dear? Better yet how about an automatic shotgun, or a long distance sniper rifle with a heuge score... I mean... I could possibly see people wanting to own those kind of weapons if they fear an invasion, the last time the US was ever invaided was durring the spanish mexican war back in the 1800's and that was cuz we started it. Hell even durring the cold war we had an eminy that we could see, but now we don't... so whats the point of civilians owning heuge weapons or even wanting to? There are 50 cal handguns... why? A desert eagal, why? I stop at around a hand held 6 shot 33cal, that gun I could see as being used for personal defence but against who? People with guns?