Think the feds are taking your guns? Think again! This just in!

reply to post by MikeNice81


The State is Not at War.

The Governor of Kali-for-nyah or his predecessor did not send troups
overseas, they might have stood on the dock waving goodbye.

The War in Iraq and Afghanistan is a Federal Issue, under Federal
Command, and has nothing to do with the Individual States.

The Term "War on Drugs", is also meaningless term like the "War on Terror",
it only exists for Media Attention.

Drugs and Terror are Nouns, how can rage war against a Noun?

reply to post by skeptic_al


Actually by being a part of the United States each state agrees to help the other in times of war. So if the federal government declares a state of war the individual states are seen to be in a state of war.

Actually if you can be at war with say Germany, you can be at war with a noun. Nouns are the abstract representation of something concrete and solid.

IS a war on terror possible? That is a whole other discussion.

All of that being said I was using these two definitions of the word state:

2. country: a country or nation with its own sovereign independent government
3. government: a country's government and those government-controlled institutions that are responsible for its internal administration and its relationships with other countries

Originally posted by PsychoX42

I think that your method has been tried for centuries. Obviously this method has been ineffective considering it only escalates situations and thus creates more war. But, I'll let you be the judge in how you choose to interact with others.

Thank you. To each his own. 'My' method has been used for millennia, and has never failed to produce results, except in cases where heart was lost, and half-measures taken. There are people alive and well, and living in peace even today, because I was willing to take it just as far as I had to in order to insure that outcome, and the opposition was not.

Honestly, I really wasn't knocking you or your philosophy. All of the people I have ever known with any experience of real violence much prefer peace, just as you do. Some tend to take a different path to secure it. I would consider my approach to be 'proactive', but wouldn't require that anyone else see it that way.

Personally, since I don't have anyone outside of my back door shooting at me, I think my method has been good so far.

Neither do I, any more.

If you are violent, you will attract it. If you're non- violent, you typically find ways to avoid it, or never run into it just from the vibrations that you exude. In my opinion, living by the sword is dying by it as well.

I personally don't exude ANY vibrations. That would be a violation of operational security, and announce my presence. You are VERY correct in the assessment that "living by the sword is dying by the sword". That death can be represented in more ways than one, and there are actually folks walking around who are dead all the way to the core from it. Some willingly made that sacrifice, some were not so willing, but did it any how, and nearly all did it so that other folks wouldn't have to.

However, I cannot pretend to know your situation since I do not walk in your shoes. My opinion is mine alone, but, I'm sure that there are others whom would agree.

You are without doubt entitled to your opinion, same as anyone, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

The fact is, there really are bad people out there, who are more than willing to disrupt your peace, and there's not much of any way to stop them short of force. My police instructor used to put it this way - he always said "there are some people who are just born junkyard dog mean. No real reason for it, they just are born that way. The only thing you can do for 'em is to put 'em down, and lock them away from peaceful folks, and you'll never get it done peacefully."

If you try to love those sorts of people to death, they will laugh and kill you with something a bit more solid than 'love'.

In the same vein, I've always told my kids that there really are monsters out there - yes, monsters are real, just not the ones kids expect to find under their bed. They walk the streets and search for prey, same as you would expect any monster to do.

I for one am very glad there are other folks around with the same outlook as me. I won't always be there to keep 'em safe, and then it falls to someone else to do so.

That's why I'm glad for the small measure of autonomy that this ruling supports. My own family has seen first hand how it works when one is able and willing to meet 'the bad man' with as much force as is necessary to subdue him. Thankfully, so far, they haven't had the converse demonstrated to them.

No, my 'violent proclivities' didn't draw violence to them. My family's peaceful proclivities drew predators. I happened to walk along into their lives at just the right time to put a stop to that sort of thing. The violence in those cases never escalated beyond the point where the opposition figured out that I was as serious as a heart attack, and it was far and away safer for them to go find other victims.

reply to post by marg6043

You're dead wrong. This is a terrifying ruling. Why? Because four Supreme Court Justices voted AGAINST the SECOND AMENDMENT. FOUR out of nine voted against the Constitution of the United States of America. This should have been a 9-0 vote in favor of gun rights, and with a lunatic Socialist at the helm, if any of the decent 5 Justices leave the SCOTUS, we'll get a total nut appointed, just like the horrible witch they're trying to appoint as we speak.

Originally posted by Crimson_King
Guns should not be allowed and restricted. We are not living in Wild Wild West anymore, civilised country have no need for weapon for private citizens. Doesn't matter what is said in constitution..it's outdated now and served it's purpose.

(sarcasm)

I'm with ya, baby! I'm more of a pipe bomb kinda guy. They're WAY easier to build, and can do a damn sight more damage. Bullets are so.... SPECIFIC. Why make one tiny popping noise and just hit ONE target, when you can make a really BIG boom, and take a bunch out!

Plus, you don't need a machine shop to build one!

And about that pesky old Constitution - why should we stop with just getting rid if IT? Let's just burn ALL books and stuff. We could have a regular Friday night book burning, to kick off every weekend! Better yet - can't we just blow 'em to bits with pipe bombs? Maybe that would be less of a fire hazard - might even keep the carbon tax from all the burning paper lower for the 'green' types.

(/sarcasm)

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by LurkingSleipner

 

It is actually quite hard to find the original text and it's entirety.

No it isn't. 3 seconds and a google search (since you're obviously already at your computer) on "Second Amendment US Constitution" should clear up that misconception for you.

But the main phrase is
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State

"Main phrase"? Do you mean "operative clause"? What you quote there is NOWHERE found in the Second Amendment. NOWHERE.

The key word being and, it does not say or

Meaning you need both conditions to be met to have that right.
If it had said or they you would be entitled to live like
the Wild Wild West, without question.

If that is what you hinge your argument on, YOU LOSE. The only place "and" is found in the Second Amendment is in the operative clause, which states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Nowhere does it link the two elements you mention as co-requirements. Again, I stress NOWHERE.

Here's to hoping that some day, you will actually learn what you are talking about BEFORE you attempt to talk about it.

reply to post by nenothtu


I appreciate your intelligent and thoughtful reply. Indeed, there are some extremely bad people out there, however, the worst seem to reside high in offices in which they are safe and comfortable from any warfare of their own.

Good day to you brother.

Namaste and Love

Does anyone find it strange that it passed with a 5-4 vote. That seems a little to close for something that is easily interpretable.

I am more nervous that it only passed by 1 vote.
What is so different for these individuals that it would almost split the vote down the middle.
Who are the 4 that voted against our rights?
Sounds like treason to me!



Ok, I just went through and saw that some are seeing what I am.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by jeh2324]

So when will the residents of the state of New York be allowed to own hand guns? We have a few legally purchased hand guns that were federally registered when we bought them. Before we moved up here about a year and a half ago, we were warned to not bring them into the state. So when can I go get my legally owned and registered firearms?

Originally posted by darkelf
So when will the residents of the state of New York be allowed to own hand guns? We have a few legally purchased hand guns that were federally registered when we bought them. Before we moved up here about a year and a half ago, we were warned to not bring them into the state. So when can I go get my legally owned and registered firearms?

I'm no expert, but I believe that US Supreme Court rulings are instantly effective, so I would guess that based on the majority opinion, you'd be able to buy starting now. There may be a bit of lag because of the need to put frameworks and such into effect but it should be very soon if not right now.

Another couple of posters have noted that gun store owners in Chicago are going to be making bank this summer because of this ruling, I would think the ones in New York are thinking the same way too.

reply to post by MikeNice81


I've always hated the title "War On Terror" too. An army cannot fight an abstract concept, ever. What we call it here in the United Kingdom generally is World War IV, with the third being the Cold War. Since military operations have taken place in every populated continent, it easily fits the definition of a world war and the number of countries involved is absolutely staggering. The entire NATO alliance has engaged in Afghanistan, the so-called "Coalition Of The Willing" has fought in Iraq, but for what I truly believe was an illegal premise there. On top of this there are localized operations going on throughout Central Asia, especially involving Russia and the United States engagement against terrorist organizations and there have been domestic operations conducted in almost every industrialized and developing nation on earth.

The scope of military operations undertaken against radical Islam since 9-11 has been beyond the level of anything since the Cold War. Indeed it must be noted that the Cold War (World War III) lasted half a century, there has been more warfare this decade in more corners of the world than there ever was in that time period. The attacks on 9-11 in the United States were they first salvo but it is foolish to only call this America's war anymore. The whole world has come to fight non-state organizations, and that is something much more concrete than any "War On Terror" definition could be.

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by solarstorm

 

Absolutely, then it's down to a matter of survival for our country, and under those circumstances, yes I would take that back.

But, since "Red Dawn" is just a movie, it's irrelevant.

And as far as the citizens keeping foreign invaders at bay...I don't think that worked out for the insurgents in Iraq.

"I've got an AR-16!" is kinda stupid when they have armor and air power.

You're better off with a bolt-action sniper rifle. Guerrilla warfare from a distance. Anyone who thinks civilians will win a war with automatic weapons (you know - weapons that aren't that accurate, put you in the enemy's range and give away your position) is living in fantasy land.

I would like to have a gun.

But I dont want my neighbors to carry guns because that makes me feel extremely unsafe. What if one of the more dumb ones shoots a bullet through the wall by mistake? Or gets tired of life and decides to take half the building down with him? Or their kids take a gun to school and decides to have some fun?

So the issue is a bit more complicated than "I need it to protect my family". If you get a gun, everybody else gets a gun as well. It becomes the wild west.



[edit on 29-6-2010 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy

Originally posted by darkelf
So when will the residents of the state of New York be allowed to own hand guns? We have a few legally purchased hand guns that were federally registered when we bought them. Before we moved up here about a year and a half ago, we were warned to not bring them into the state. So when can I go get my legally owned and registered firearms?

I'm no expert, but I believe that US Supreme Court rulings are instantly effective, so I would guess that based on the majority opinion, you'd be able to buy starting now. There may be a bit of lag because of the need to put frameworks and such into effect but it should be very soon if not right now.

Another couple of posters have noted that gun store owners in Chicago are going to be making bank this summer because of this ruling, I would think the ones in New York are thinking the same way too.

The SC didn't strike down the law - it's still in force. It merely directed the appeals court to reconsider its earlier ruling. And Chicago's mayor says there will be a new, differently-written law if this one is overturned.

One article says this:

But the decision also signaled that some limitations on the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" could survive legal challenges. Alito noted that while fully binding on states and cities, the Second Amendment "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by solarstorm

 

Absolutely, then it's down to a matter of survival for our country, and under those circumstances, yes I would take that back.

But, since "Red Dawn" is just a movie, it's irrelevant.

And as far as the citizens keeping foreign invaders at bay...I don't think that worked out for the insurgents in Iraq.

"I've got an AR-16!" is kinda stupid when they have armor and air power.

You're better off with a bolt-action sniper rifle. Guerrilla warfare from a distance. Anyone who thinks civilians will win a war with automatic weapons (you know - weapons that aren't that accurate, put you in the enemy's range and give away your position) is living in fantasy land.

Such a short post- so many errors.

1: the situations in Iraq and the United States are totally different. We're talking vast differences in geography, population size, and social structure here. The American citizenry is far, far better armed than the Iraqis have ever been, and likely ever will be.

2: There is no such thing as an "AR-16".

3: Guerrilla warfare can be (and is) conducted from any distance, with any available weapons. You can fight a guerrilla war with knives if you have to. That said, a good quality deer rifle is essentially a sniper rifle. The current, state-of-the-art, USMC issue sniper weapon is a modified deer rifle. Americans own deer rifles by the MILLIONS. They are available everywhere. I could walk out my door and buy a "sniper rifle" from one of three different stores within walking distance, and have the thing home in less than an hour.

4: Most American citizens do not have access to "automatic weapons". Many do, but they are expensive, and there are a lot of hoops to jump through. Semi-automatic weapons, yes.

5: A full-automatic or semi-automatic weapon is (generally speaking) no more or less accurate than a manual-action weapon.

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

"I've got an AR-16!" is kinda stupid when they have armor and air power.

No more so than, say for instance, "I've got a bolt action sniper rifle!" is against armor and air power.

You're better off with a bolt-action sniper rifle. Guerrilla warfare from a distance. Anyone who thinks civilians will win a war with automatic weapons (you know - weapons that aren't that accurate, put you in the enemy's range and give away your position) is living in fantasy land.

Sometimes, fighting SMART just plain wins over hardware. Are you insinuating that somehow, automatic weapons are accurate only in governmental hands? You understand that a governmental army is composed of former civilians, right? Those same people go back to being civilians afterwards, but they don't seem to turn in their training as they leave.

There are times when you just can't stand afar off, and expect to win much of anything. Bolt action sniper rifle or not. Some times, you just have to get within range to be effective. It's FAR more important to understand what that range IS.

In my opinion, anyone who thinks ANY army, governmental or otherwise, is somehow magically better than the individuals who it's made up of, is living in fantasy land.

For the record, both armor AND air power can be defeated. It's been done before, and doubtless will be done again. NEVER place too much trust in technology, because tech will FAIL you at the most inopportune times.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


I completely agree with you. It is no longer America's war. It also shouldn't be called a war on terror. A war on terror is like fighting a war against fighting at night. You can not fight a tactic only those that use a tactic.

Unfortunately the name is vauge enough that they can use ir to wrestle more power away from people and instill fear in others.

Or, as my friend said. "If I was an Iraqi with American solidiers kicking in my neighbor's door, or Sunni's killing my cousin, I would be in terror."

Terror is a word that just ignores reality when used in the current context by the world's governments.

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by LurkingSleipner

 

It is actually quite hard to find the original text and it's entirety.

But the main phrase is
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State

The key word being and, it does not say or

Meaning you need both conditions to be met to have that right.
If it had said or they you would be entitled to live like
the Wild Wild West, without question.

So carrying a Magnum into McDonalds you are not defending yourself
and the state. And you can't be defending the State if the
State is not at War.

Oh boo hoo, It's to hard to find, please someone else do it for me.
well fine i guess it's kowtowing to your immature attitude to not try and find it so ill go ahead and get it for you.

Please wait while searching....

Wikipedia

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights. One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads: “ 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.” Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation: “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 original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

But the main phrase is That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State

Incorrect that is not the ratified text of the second amendment, as of December 15, 1791 when the first ten Amendments (The Bill of Rights) having been ratified were appended to the United States Constitution the text was “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.”

Your strawman arguments and Incorrect quotations mask your lack of intelligence on the topic but show your true base alignment. Your agenda is shining through the falsehoods you weave in text. As I have stated before, either show respect to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by not speaking about a topic which you show a lack of knowledge in or go study the resources I have given unto you.

And yes, regardless of what weapon you have, If you are carrying upon your person you are fulfilling your right to bear arms. Which is not being infringed upon at that point, until some do-good legislature decides to infringe on it.

I grew up with firearms all over the house. Mind you, we we hunted for the majority of our meat (deer, squirrel, rabbit, turkey, etc.), but we were taught how to use the arms safely. I think that what should be done is set up a firearm training program in all public middle/high schools that is a requirement for graduation, much like a Driver Education course. Teach the young adults that guns are not playthings, but they are tools. Just as a hoe and a bucket can help you grow a garden of food and chase away a burglar, so too can a firearm provide food and protection.

Every American has the right to keep and bear arms, but people need to be taught how to bear them safely. It's the right to have it, but with that comes the responsibility to do so without inadvertently harming someone or something else.

I just remembered, and it may have been in this thread already, but I heard about two towns/cities on opposite sides of a river (I believe that it was somewhere in the Alabama area or some other southern state). One (call it Town A) banned handguns completely, while the other (Town B) removed all restrictions on concealment. After a year, Town A had seen a dramatic increase in violent crimes such as murder, rape, assault, etc. while Town B had a reduction in these same crimes to nearly zero. Does anyone know which towns these were?

Even if these towns are non-existent, this can be taken as a parable of sorts. We have all heard that if you make guns illegal then only the criminals will have them. On the opposite side of that coin: If you let everyone have a gun, the criminals will ALWAYS think before they try something... because it may be the last thing that they attempt. Locks only keep the honest man out of your house, but a boom stick will make the dishonest LEAVE your house... one way or the other.

As far as assault rifles are concerned, I don't believe that they should be restricted. Pretend you are asleep in your house when someone breaks in and wakes you up. You grab your trusty 12GA pump shotgun and head downstairs. There are two people in your house with AK's on opposite sides of the living room. You lose. You most likely cannot get two shots off before one of them turns you into swiss-meat-cheese (and possibly your spouse/children from stray bullets).

The more dangerous you are to the burglars/invaders/whomever, the less likely they are to try to take something away from you.

As far as assault rifles are concerned, I don't believe that they should be restricted. Pretend you are asleep in your house when someone breaks in and wakes you up. You grab your trusty 12GA pump shotgun and head downstairs. There are two people in your house with AK's on opposite sides of the living room. You lose. You most likely cannot get two shots off before one of them turns you into Swiss-meat-cheese (and possibly your spouse/children from stray bullets). The more dangerous you are to the burglars/invaders/whomever, the less likely they are to try to take something away from you.

I'm in total agreement on this with you. We shouldn't have restrictions on what an "arm"or armament can do.

In addition I also am of the mind other arm's shouldn't be restricted in the protection of ourselves, our families, neighbors, city, state and country we should have the utmost diversity in arms, armament, and other things that we are able to bear.