The Right To Bear Arms Is A Volatile Issue We Face Daily...

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
So, it doesn't advocate (aka: horray, own a bunch of slaves! DO IT!) -- but it does protect, and allow the continuing practice of slavery in early American history.

I am not sure why you think it protects slavery which was institutionalized at that point and did not need protecting.

Ah ha! So slavery is mentioned in passing in our Constitution, but it didn't need to be protected -- as it was seen as a normal part of society.

So, sort of, "We don't need an amendment to protect slavery...who would try to get rid of that? Now guns...we need to have an amendment to protect those..."

I'm only pointing this out as an example of how as society advances and changes, we have made changes to our founding documents. At the dawn of our country slavery was, in your own words "institutionalized". No one thought it was going anywhere. Yet here we are today with an amendment abolishing slavery in our constitution.

To be honest -- I'm more worried about a return to slavery (even if we all have 30+ guns in our homes). Corporate slavery and indentured servitude is probably a much greater, and immediate threat to our personal freedom today than gun control.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

That's blatantly ignoring things, though. Ignoring the fact that individual states had banned slavery and the slave trade. Ignoring that the federal government was given the ability to outlaw the slave trade in the early 1800s. Ignoring the idea that the slave trade was thought, like so many other things, to be an issue best handled by the states instead of by a central government.

It's not at all an equal comparison, and if you want to use it then we can look at how many states had banned slavery in the late 1700s up through the 1860s.

It's a cute example and all, but it only works if one chooses to ignore several historical facts.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Mistake.

The 2nd does not protect "guns." It protects a person's right to keep and bears arms, whatever those might be. The difference is subtle but important. You see, we might someday have laser guns, and if the 2nd Amendment and COTUS were confined to "guns" the way some want to confine it to muskets, then we would effectively have our ability to keep and bears arms and thus protect our persons and property from any and all comers, in this case from those with laser guns, taken from us by someone's overly narrow interpretation of the wording.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Then WHY did you ask?

Ask what; give me a specific.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Mistake.

The 2nd does not protect "guns." It protects a person's right to keep and bears arms, whatever those might be. The difference is subtle but important. You see, we might someday have laser guns, and if the 2nd Amendment and COTUS were confined to "guns" the way some want to confine it to muskets, then we would effectively have our ability to keep and bears arms and thus protect our persons and property from any and all comers, in this case from those with laser guns, taken from us by someone's overly narrow interpretation of the wording.

So should the second allow for a person to own nuclear weapons or does the right to bear arms have limitations?

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Ah ha! So slavery is mentioned in passing in our Constitution, but it didn't need to be protected -- as it was seen as a normal part of society.

Not by all of society but sadly too many were not vocal enough at the time or apathetic.

I'm only pointing this out as an example of how as society advances and changes, we have made changes to our founding documents. At the dawn of our country slavery was, in your own words "institutionalized". No one thought it was going anywhere. Yet here we are today with an amendment abolishing slavery in our constitution.

Franklin and Jefferson, at the time of the Declaration, both knew it would need to be addressed at some point and possibly at great cost. I understand your reason for pointing it out, the Constitution can indeed be cahnged, just not easily.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: vethumanbeing

The second allows us to protect ourselves from all enemies foreign an d domestic not just th e government.

Yes; but what are chances (in the near or far future) Mexico or Canada is going to invade us pay attention to the 'domestic' part of this as includes 'the Presidents Own'.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Cool, cool -- I'm not "anti-gun" and I fully understand the rationale behind the 2nd Amendment. I think though, we as a society -- we need to stop fetishizing guns to the extreme level we do. People in other 1st world countries must look at us and wonder why on Earth someone needs a gun safe the size of two refrigerators full of 30+ guns.

I think part of is because we used guns to tame the west and win WWII. Guns were tools, indispensable ones that helped make the country we have today (and only fairly recently). We've gone from being mainly agrarian to being urbanized and industrialized nearly overnight.

I think that process happened to America a lot faster than places like Europe...and I think that's why we still cling to our guns in the way we do.

Just a pet theory I'm working on at least.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I think though, we as a society -- we need to stop fetishizing guns to the extreme level we do.

I personally think that those who are overly obssessed about firearms are a small, but very visible, minority, and as a gun owner I do not find my sentiments aligned with thiers, nor do I feel they represent me or the average gun owner.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I think though, we as a society -- we need to stop fetishizing guns to the extreme level we do.

I personally think that those who are overly obssessed about firearms are a small, but very visible, minority, and as a gun owner I do not find my sentiments aligned with thiers, nor do I feel they represent me or the average gun owner.

I would second (ironic choice of word?) that notion. To some, guns belong on their YouTube channel and are toys.

To those who are truly "workers" with firearms, guns are tools. Yes, they can be fun tools. Yes, I like having cool attachments for my firearms. But at the end of the day, my guns are nothing more than tools. I think there is a very visible minority of gun owners that have no concept of what the term "working gun" means.

They're the ones that get the attention, because they're the ones that demand attention. Those of us who know what a "working gun" is do just that: work.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
To those who are truly "workers" with firearms, guns are tools. Yes, they can be fun tools. Yes, I like having cool attachments for my firearms. But at the end of the day, my guns are nothing more than tools.

Exactly. I have an awesome torque wrench that I used to restore my Stingray but I do not have a YouTube channel where I use it to blow things up and generally act like an attention-seeking jackass.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: vethumanbeing

The second allows us to protect ourselves from all enemies foreign an d domestic not just th e government.

Yes; but what are chances (in the near or far future) Mexico or Canada is going to invade us pay attention to the 'domestic' part of this as includes 'the Presidents Own'.

So long as we have our guns? Chances are low.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I think though, we as a society -- we need to stop fetishizing guns to the extreme level we do.

I personally think that those who are overly obssessed about firearms are a small, but very visible, minority, and as a gun owner I do not find my sentiments aligned with thiers, nor do I feel they represent me or the average gun owner.

Not sure what you mean; some of us are enthused hobbyists (collect relics, black powder firearms and those that are legal specialized arms ). What is an average gun owner as a buyer or seller? What is the interest? You think overly obsessed and visible. No, hobbyists are not visible. You have spent words and thoughts on what you do NOT align yourself with; what is your alignment?

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Not sure what you mean; some of us are enthused hobbyists...

Hobbyists are fine. Loonies that need to show their stuff off on YouTube while acting like a jackass? Not so much.

I know plenty of people who collect firearms as a hobby, none of them act like jerkoffs.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: vethumanbeing

The second allows us to protect ourselves from all enemies foreign an d domestic not just th e government.

Yes; but what are chances (in the near or far future) Mexico or Canada is going to invade us pay attention to the 'domestic' part of this as includes 'the Presidents Own'.

So long as we have guns? Chances are low.

Exactly; was made aware of a quote (not by Genghis Khan) the other day "NO ONE invades the US because those common people living there (not of the military forces) are legally armed'. For an insurgent force becomes a scary prospect.

I've come to the conclusion that the only reason to control/limit firearms is to give more control to government.

Murder is already illegal. Yet criminals still do it. what are more laws going to do but inhibit those who obey the laws in the first place.

a reply to: DBCowboy
Would that be the 'domestic' proponent?

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: DBCowboy
Would that be the 'domestic' proponent?

I don't understand.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I agree with that theory, I've had very similar thoughts on it. It's not just WW2 and the west either, but our guns are how we broke away from England. Guns are tied to every major action in the US that lead to prosperity for us.

I'm not anti gun either, but I do think we need a few more limitations placed on them. A gun for home defense is perfectly reasonable. A concealed handgun on your person when you go to the bar and have had a few is not.

In general I do not approve of gun free zones, unless the entire country is declared a gun free zone. But I am much more skeptical of the need to concealed carry a handgun in public when less lethal options are available. When people come into conflict and reason gives way to emotion, handguns often find themselves being used in the wrong ways.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I don't know why someone would either, but then I don't tend collect anything.

Why does anyone become a collector?. My mother collects elephants (not live ones, thank God!) and my grandmother did the same with lambs. Some people like to keep a collection of guns just like you could collect coins, stamps or baseball cards.

You are making the assumption everyone who does this is building their own private arsenal. No doubt some are, but then again, some are collecting as firearms are tools with distinct uses, advantages and disadvantages as well as differing values.