The Second Amendment: A Treatise

Reply to post by thisguyrighthere

www.purpleberets.org...

findarticles.com...

www.news-medical.net...

This is a problem on everyones doorstep. Lunatics abound with authority and guns and all the popular support they need from the tax levying government and fearful populace.



Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by macman

 

Yes I support licenseing and as you pointed out Trains and cars are not illegal but as I pointed out they require a license. I didn't post in this thread to agree with everything others have said I don't know where you got the idea I did.
You fail to make a point.

Do you really think you are going to change my mind on this. If anything you have only solidified my resolve.

So far you have accused me of being anti gun I am not I am anti idiots owning Military hardware.

You called my stance a turd (whatever that means).

I could care less that means I care a little. I stated my view and instead of trying to get me to see your way with a inteligent conversation you attacked with nonsensicle rhetoric.

I was open to ideas but not anymore. Good luck with your next target.

BTW the question you should ask is what is the differance between a Hunting Rifle and MK19. Watch some videos.

Oh good hell.

Do I expect to change your mind? No, but I have no problem in pointing out that your logic is wrong and goes against how the Country and Rights were designed.

The difference between the 2 rifles? Nothing, as they both discharge a round.
This is like stating that the bigger the knife, the worse the crime.


You want laws governing firearms, as you see fit. Thanks for making decisions for me. I really appreciate that.

Again, you want to legislate what if's and might be's.

We can agree and disagree on certain points as to the extent of possession of firearms; however, with regard to the second amendment --

Until the past decade the second amendment has long been treated as a states rights issue. It wasn't until the recently right wing conservative appointments by GW Bush in the last decade that the (far more politically activist) supreme court would even come anywhere nearing the subject.

Militias are formed through the state themselves, they are not the people deciding to rise up. There hasn't been an active militia called since the 1830's unless you want to consider the southern armies in the civil war.

The language used by the founding fathers is also being taken out of context. The world we live in and the world they lived in are no where near the same. The language they used was propaganda to sell the federal system to the average person. Men like Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamiliton (all three are authors of the federalist papers) had to sell the system to the people. They fed on that sentiment.

Frankly, until the supreme court rules there are to be unchecked gun rights, the second amendment is, essentially, a dead article.

reply to post by cypruswolf


So the old dead horse mantra of "The Founding Fathers did not know about (Insert modern Firearm)"?

The fact that the term "Musket" was left out, along with the weapons of the day shows they had foresight into this, and provided the law as such.
This is "Shall not infringe Upon" at the very basics.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by cypruswolf

 

Anything can be a weapon.
The fact that one has wheels, and the other goes boom means very little.

It means everything. Cars are not design as a weapon; therefore, they are not regulated as such.
As for licensing it has no place in this conversation. Licenses have nothing to do with the intent of the object; but rather safety protocol.

Originally posted by cypruswolf

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by cypruswolf

 

Anything can be a weapon.
The fact that one has wheels, and the other goes boom means very little.

It means everything. Cars are not design as a weapon; therefore, they are not regulated as such.
As for licensing it has no place in this conversation. Licenses have nothing to do with the intent of the object; but rather safety protocol.

Licensing for firearms is very clearly defined within this thread.
The protocol is not for safety, but built as Govt control and an avenue for revenue.

The fact that a firearm can be designed specifically for shooting targets, means that it is merely certain people that want to control something they don't like or fear.

A vehicle, like anything else can be designed to be a weapon.
A firearm can be designed to shoot targets, and not people.

Your argument can be countered with the same nonsense from the Anti side.

Originally posted by macman
Oh good hell.

Do I expect to change your mind? No, but I have no problem in pointing out that your logic is wrong and goes against how the Country and Rights were designed.

The difference between the 2 rifles? Nothing, as they both discharge a round.
This is like stating that the bigger the knife, the worse the crime.


You want laws governing firearms, as you see fit. Thanks for making decisions for me. I really

appreciate that.

Again, you want to legislate what if's and might be's.

It's about the intent of the weapon. An M16 has only one purpose, it is a military machine gun design for combat. During the revolutionary period, muskets served a number of purposes, hunting, defense against natives. Just because they are both firearms does not mean they have the same intent. In the case of handguns, the argument can be made they are designed for close quarter defense like in the home, which is why several states permit CCW permits and one of the places they are allowed to be is in the home.

Originally posted by cypruswolf

Originally posted by macman
Oh good hell.

Do I expect to change your mind? No, but I have no problem in pointing out that your logic is wrong and goes against how the Country and Rights were designed.

The difference between the 2 rifles? Nothing, as they both discharge a round.
This is like stating that the bigger the knife, the worse the crime.


You want laws governing firearms, as you see fit. Thanks for making decisions for me. I really

appreciate that.

Again, you want to legislate what if's and might be's.

It's about the intent of the weapon. An M16 has only one purpose, it is a military machine gun design for combat. During the revolutionary period, muskets served a number of purposes, hunting, defense against natives. Just because they are both firearms does not mean they have the same intent. In the case of handguns, the argument can be made they are designed for close quarter defense like in the home, which is why several states permit CCW permits and one of the places they are allowed to be is in the home.

That's nice and all, but it still does not trump the fact that the Law of the Land (Constitution) states there is a right to bear arms.
Does not matter whether it is a hunting rifle, or your evil M16.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by macman

 

Yes I support licenseing and as you pointed out Trains and cars are not illegal but as I pointed out they require a license. I didn't post in this thread to agree with everything others have said I don't know where you got the idea I did.
You fail to make a point.

Do you really think you are going to change my mind on this. If anything you have only solidified my resolve.

So far you have accused me of being anti gun I am not I am anti idiots owning Military hardware.

You called my stance a turd (whatever that means).

I could care less that means I care a little. I stated my view and instead of trying to get me to see your way with a inteligent conversation you attacked with nonsensicle rhetoric.

I was open to ideas but not anymore. Good luck with your next target.

BTW the question you should ask is what is the differance between a Hunting Rifle and MK19. Watch some videos.

Oh good hell.

Do I expect to change your mind? No, but I have no problem in pointing out that your logic is wrong and goes against how the Country and Rights were designed.

The difference between the 2 rifles? Nothing, as they both discharge a round.
This is like stating that the bigger the knife, the worse the crime.


You want laws governing firearms, as you see fit. Thanks for making decisions for me. I really

appreciate that.

Again, you want to legislate what if's and might be's.

Obviously you did not look up what a MK19 is. So let me tell you the differance between the two. One can demolish a building and take out anthing in a 15 meter radius the other can be used to hunt or taget shoot. One would be prefered by terrorist or psychopath the other would be prefered by a hunter.

Originally posted by macman
The fact that a firearm can be designed specifically for shooting targets, means that it is merely certain people that want to control something they don't like or fear.

Guns are not designed as some toy for shooting at a target on a range. That is not their intent.

A vehicle, like anything else can be designed to be a weapon.
A firearm can be designed to shoot targets, and not people.

Car manufactures do not manufacture the car itself as a weapon, its a mode of transportation. If it's used improperly then yes it can become a weapon and the law reacts accordingly, but stop with the red herring already.

reply to post by Grimpachi


That's really super fantastic and all, but the Shall not Infringe still sits.

Originally posted by cypruswolf

Originally posted by macman
The fact that a firearm can be designed specifically for shooting targets, means that it is merely certain people that want to control something they don't like or fear.

Guns are not designed as some toy for shooting at a target on a range. That is not their intent.

A vehicle, like anything else can be designed to be a weapon.
A firearm can be designed to shoot targets, and not people.

Car manufactures do not manufacture the car itself as a weapon, its a mode of transportation. If it's used improperly then yes it can become a weapon and the law reacts accordingly, but stop with the red herring already.

edit on 27-11-2011 by cypruswolf because: (no reason given)

I love the fact that you get to define what is and what is not.

Sorry, but there are target designed and constructed rifles.

It is very clear you think that there should be all types of cypruswolf approved rules and laws concerning Firearms, but the fact is that it violates the topic as stated in the OP.

Thanks for playing.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Both with trains and cars you need a liscense yes.

Actually no you don't. Driver licenses are unconstitutional.

Driving is not a privilege given by the state, it's a right. You only need a license if you want to do commerce with your vehicle.

Driving = traveling = free right to travel... not free license to travel.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Well that video was a huge waste of time watching. I thought it was going to be relevent but it wasn't.

As far as travel goes I am fairly sure you do not need a liscense to walk or ride a horse which is what they had back then. I am guessing you believe even flying a plane should be done without a liscense.

A country where no one has a drivers liscense or pilots liscense, of people just doing whatever they feel like doing with heavy machinery would be a very dangerous enviroment.

You have a right to drive a vehicle on private property all you want without a liscense but when you decide to use state and federal roads the govt has every right to restrict how you do so.

If you bought up all the land between where you are and where you want to go then it isn't any of the govt buisness.

reply to post by cypruswolf


Perhaps you should re-read the OP.

Every baseless argument you used has been dealt with.

Try again.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
While I am a gun owner and believe in the right to bare arms I also believe there are limits.

It does not matter "what you believe."

What matters is the Constitution.

What does it say?

Let me also say I would love to have automatic weapons because they are fun but they have no real purpose.

Defending your freedoms against a tyrannical government.

There is your purpose.

DId you even read the OP?

When our founding fathers wrote the constitution the weapons of that time were no where near as destructive as todays.

I guess you did not read the OP.

There is another argument, although weak, that must be settled now. Some people will claim that the Second Amendment is obsolete because we have machine guns and grenades now, instead of muskets and cannon balls.

A right . . . your freedom can NEVER be obsolete. The day protecting your freedoms has become obsolete, is the day that tyranny has won.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined....

- Patrick Henry

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

- Noah Webster

How can you expect to defend yourself against the government (which is the SOLE PURPOSE of the 2nd Amendment), if you do not have at least what the government has?

Would anyone wan't there neighbor owning a nuclear bomb?

Straw man.

Strictly going by the secound amendment it should be lawfull but I don't want to live in a country that has no boudries.

There is boundaries. Your rights end where mine begin.

Read the Constitution.

A lot of it is just common sense . . .

And yet you utterly failed at it . . .

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Myself and the OP dissagree on one fundamental thing. I believe the National Guard to be the well regulated Militia. He speaks bounds on everything except the regulated part. You can not have one without the other.
Otherwise why would it say WELL REGULATED.

reply to post by Grimpachi


It is what the words "well regulated" actually mean, i suppose, that has all the teeth.

To me, it would mean "regulated towards a degree of wellness", as in it is overseen with minimal requirements for usability in service (disabilities, etc) as well as general cohesion for the purpose of battle planning.

The modern use of the word "regulate" seems to imply a monolithic big brother creating arbitrary hoops which you must jump through.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


And that is where we dissagree. It has been through the courts and has been decided what the intent of well regulated means already. If they had said regulated without implicitly placeing well before it things may have turned out different.
Leave the truly destructive weaponry to those who have voluntered to defend there states and countries. Those who have sacraficed there time and freedoms to be trained in there use and who have taken a oath to do so.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Regulated at the time does not mean what it means now.

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

You should read the rest of the article.


I doubt you will though, since you did not even bother with the OP.