Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

a reply to: beezzer

Amendment 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.

Here is the new second amendment they want:

Amendment II: The people have no right to self defense. They state reserves the right to any, and all firearms,ammunition so the state gets to further infringe on the rest of the rights of the people, If they don't like it? Too bad. The state has spoken.

The people further has the right to get shot by gang bangers, home invaders, the police during protesting, and the military anytime they wish.

If at anytime the people feel endangered. They have the right to dial 911, and ask the police to come save them. That is when they are not shooting other people, and not parked at their local Dunkin Donuts.

That is all at this time.

a reply to: neo96

So basically, people who are against the 2nd want everyone to be a victim.

The Framers created America after having left a class based, religiously centered and tightly controlled and judgmental society - where one could be punished, harassed, or killed at the whim of a Monarch or member of the elite ruling class.

Sadly, America, today, in ways is coming dangerously close to what we tried NOT to be in a number of areas. But...

The Framers were smart enough to set into place protections, should such a situation ever arise. They called these protections "The Bill of Rights". Not "The Bill of Temporary Stuff" nor "The Bill of Negotiable Terms To Be Figured Out Later". They called them "The Bill of Rights" and meant for them to be sacrosanct. They are the foundation upon which the Framers meant for the Constitution to grow and evolve upon as the world progressed. The amendment process is there to adapt to the needs they could not foresee or changes they could not predict.

Without a foundation it's not a house, it's a tent.

The Bill of Rights was also numbered in a manner that builds upon each prior right. The Second exists to ensure that the first is not taken away. Long story short. Laws are subject to interpretation and change. Rights, however, are inherent and guaranteed.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: neo96

So basically, people who are against the 2nd want everyone to be a victim.

Well yeah.

The endless victim card with them.

If it's not the evil christians, it's the evil bankers. If it's not the evil bankers, it's the evil corporations. If it's not the evil corporations its them evil 'terrorists'. If it's not the evil terrorists. It's the evil gun owners.

We have so many laws to 'protect' the people I don't see how there can be any victim's.

And yet there are. So they create more laws. more victims to create more laws.

Gun rights is the proverbial straw that broke the camels back for me.

Many posters arguing the anti-gun argument distrust the government unless it is something that fits into their agenda or beliefs this is pathetic at best. Most people have a form of mental illness like OCD,anxiety,depression,ADD and you had better believe TPTB will cast a wide......WIDE net. They will set the standard not the doctors and they will also enforce it.



I wonder how many of these posters would be for losing freedom of speech because of mental illness? You can try and use the argument words are not as dangerous as guns but you would only look foolish in doing so. If they do pass a law it will fail unless our corrupt court system upholds it.......If they do they are not following the constitution anymore and might as well rip it up and flush it down the toilet.



If this does pass I wonder how many of these progressives posting in this thread will be crying a river when they are found mentally unfit. What if gun rights is just the beginning.........Look at the bigger picture guys......Do you trust TPTB? If your answer is no your entire argument on this issue is a mute point and you should rethink things.

originally posted by: thefallenone

originally posted by: beezzer


So you want people to have the freedom to deny freedom.

dafrak?

You don't? I mean every time someone mentions any change to the law, you guys get all up in arms. So you want to deny those who are for stricter gun laws their rights and freedom to do so?

Nah. They're free to want all they wish - they are even free to want a unicorn if it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy. They can "want" in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills up first.

originally posted by: thefallenone

originally posted by: Answer

Plenty of Americans want all Muslims to die, should we respect their First Amendment freedoms and kill all Muslims?

How about the Americans who want all gays to die? All blacks?

You are free to want change but that doesn't mean the rest of the country has to take your idiotic request seriously.

Gun owners and their idiotic arguments. So tell me where does it state in the constitution that you are allowed to kill fellow Americans at will? Or hell that you can kill anyone w you disagree with?

Same place it says you can ban guns.

Heaven (or Jannah if you prefer) is only an Amendment away, eh?

originally posted by: thefallenone

Actually fact, when gun owners talk, they always elude to an imaginary threat out to get them.

ie..I need a gun because someone can break into my house and murder my family..an imaginary threat.

Imaginary threat? It happened to me. Fer realz, like, dewd.

But I'm still here.

because my gun was more serious than a crack head's wishes.

I'm happy for you, that you can live in a world where crime doesn't happen. Must be nice there. Since there's no crime in your world, why are you so scared of guns?

a reply to: thefallenone

Fact. The 2nd amendment can be changed to suit the times. The fore fathers made sure that was allowed.

Yes, it can be changed. Several other amendments have been changed. Truth.

Now...

Why should the Second Amendment be changed? It's a very simple question.

originally posted by: SubTruth

I wonder how many of these posters would be for losing freedom of speech because of mental illness? You can try and use the argument words are not as dangerous as guns but you would only look foolish in doing so.

Didn't Some Smart Guy once say "the pen is mightier than the sword"? I'm almost sure that what you just said is what he meant.

If they do pass a law it will fail unless our corrupt court system upholds it.......If they do they are not following the constitution anymore and might as well rip it up and flush it down the toilet.

If this does pass I wonder how many of these progressives posting in this thread will be crying a river when they are found mentally unfit.

There is nothing to pass. These are not laws up for deliberation, they are unilateral actions being taken by the executive branch, thus bypassing the legislative, law-making, branch altogether.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: thenewguy1987

On the other hand I am diagnosed as mentally ill, own it, admit it and speak openly about it. Having said that, I am 48 years old and have no criminal record at all. Even my motor vehicle report is completely blank. I've had ONE speeding ticket in my entire life - and even that was nearly three decades back.

There is nothing in my behavior that would indicate a violent predisposition whatsoever - but since "mental illness" gets the broad brush - I'm stuck in the same category as Jeffrey Dahmer and, damnit, that's just not right.

Oh it's gonna get worse than that, eventually. Even people who have not been diagnosed with anything are going to be sucked into this when big brother starts tapping into all the resources he has at his disposal to find the patterns that match. There will eventually be a massive technological dragnet that will scoop up people who haven't ever even visited a shrink. Where do you think all those "likes" from places like Facebook will end up? In a massive database that looks for patterns in relatively innocent behavior, of course. Obviously, there are commercial uses for it but you know they won't miss the chance to grab a wild card like that for their special deck.

Remembering how corrupt Obama and Eric Holder are along with Fast and Furious which got federal agents killed and civilians, and they did that without one red cent of concern for collateral damage like that. They did it to begin a quest of disarming America so it can't defend itself against a highly corrupt government. A government which has done nothing but scheme behind closed doors to rip away basic freedoms that we all need to survive as a free nation.

Obama deserves the electric chair right now for treason in every sense of the word.

His drones have killed hundreds of children overseas with the man ending up bragging about it.

He doesn't care about child safety, or the lives who his illegal laws and proposals harm. He is following the recipe to destroy a free nation, and everything which keeps a nation free.

For those who trust the Government not to overreach:


en.wikipedia.org...



If you have time to read it all please notice the part where they actually kidnapped hundreds of Japanese-peruvians,Costa Ricans,Nicaruaguans,Cubans,Panamanians,Bolivians,Ecuadorians,Venezulans,brought them to the U.S. and arrested them for crossing the border illegally.I am not going to go into Native Americans and the U.S. Government.Yes the Gov. will delegate powers to itself that are blatantly illegal and carry out their wants on the populations anywhere.Keep trusting Government...I dare you.

a reply to: macman
No way, no how would I EVER want any part of this to become law for the following reasons:
1. It makes the presumption that the government can somehow determine who is mentally unstable when it is grossly unqualified to make decisions like that.
2. Most of the politicians who would gain power are mentally unstable with combinations of greed, selfishness, and psychopathy.
3. It makes the assumption that anyone who has any kind of psychological issue is dangerous to either themselves or others which is NOT the case.
4. 99.99 percent of the people could be in one way or another could be classified as mentally unstable or with some issue.
5. It centralizes power which is the opposite of what is needed today. More power should be in the hands of the people as per the constitution and MINIMAL power in the hands of government. We should follow their security principle of least privilege (to the government) to do whatever job is necessary for the people rather than for the big business and rich.

Those are just a few reasons that immediately come to mind.

originally posted by: ventian
a reply to: Sublimecraft

The ATF is also looking to prohibit the mentally ill from owning firearms

Well, that should certainly discourage some people from seeking help. What is the definition of mentally ill, anyways?

Has already happened with the VA.

If you ask to see someone, they automatically file you as a mentally unstable and report it to the authorities. Who in turn show up at you house and "ask" to search it.

Seen it happen already all around the country.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Because it IS very easy to get an illegal gun. In many big cities you can buy them out of the back of a car. They in turn get them smuggled in from somewhere else. (Who get them supplied by the US government? )

In fact any half-way decent high school shop class can build a sub-machine gun in a couple hours. The plans are from WWII sten/sterling guns. They where designed to be made with tools that a normal bicycle shop would have.

ANd even if we do make news laws, the mentally ill and the criminals would not follow them anyway. It is already illegal for mentally ill and felons to have access to guns. Doesn't seem to stop them.

a reply to: dismanrc
Not to mention that guns are very easy to produce in home workshops.
I have said it before, heroin is completely illegal in the US, but can be purchased almost anywhere in the US. In order to get heroin here, it must be smuggled into the country.
Guns are something that don't have to be smuggled, in the event that they were completely banned, like heroin is.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Nobody is confiscating guns.

No, but every time they make a limitation on another firearm they "take away"" law-abiding citizens rights to own that firearm or part of a firearm. Thats the back door approach of "taking guns away", exactly what the thread is about.

Limiting firearms by limiting features of firearms is confiscation of firearms another way. People that haven't committed any crime will be the ones affected by new legislation. In some cases, even requiring some to give up firearms they already own in order to comply.

Obviously and despite denial, the criminals that use guns to commit crimes of robbery and or murder could care less.


To the thread: Lulz in general on 'more gun laws'. The US government is the largest arms dealer on the planet. They're dumping boat loads of arms to the worst kinds of criminals in foreign countries.

a reply to: butcherguy

Not to mention that guns are very easy to produce in home workshops.

Whaaa---? as a former Smith, I can attest that isn't true.

Firearms are precision instruments. Materials and tolerances are exacting, "producing" firearms would be akin to making engine parts for your car.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: butcherguy

Not to mention that guns are very easy to produce in home workshops.

Whaaa---? as a former Smith, I can attest that isn't true.

Firearms are precision instruments. Materials and tolerances are exacting, "producing" firearms would be akin to making engine parts for your car.

Hmmm, you make me wonder.
The Pakistanis and Afghans have been making copies of guns for many years with no power tools.

Darra
Just Google home made guns, maybe you will learn something new about smithing.