Amendment 2: - Right to Bear Arms DAMN RIGHT! Get over it!

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by zookey

 

That actually is a good question.

What would precipitate an armed revolution.

How far are we willing to be pushed.

Well consider this say we do start our revolution. First its the cops the its the armed forces. Do u think the civilians will be able to withstand that kind of fire power? Yes we are armed but what about the army and air force. We will be massacred. Did u think u would be out there shooting it out with the president and the congress?

I'm sick of this whole issue. Two things are always ignored by pro-gun people:

1. It clearly says the right is because America needs a "well regulated militia." in 1789, that might have been true. The militias were essentially America's military -- at least it's army. We don't need that any more as
we have the most powerful military in the world. But, again, it just gets IGNORED. As though those
words weren't even there. It's ridiculous.

2. The pro-gun people make as though there is no such thing as a reasonable restriction on just what can be owned, and ANY attempt to do so is part of an effort to ban guns entirely. That is not only absurd, it
is SO delusional it frightens me that these are the people so rabidly pro-gun.

So it's not going to be an honest debate.

For the record, I not only own several guns, I have a Missouri concealed carry permit. I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter. I am also a responsible citizen who feels some proposed regulation of gun ownership is entirely reasonable.

But, like I say, it's pointless to debate the issue when one side totally ignores certain aspects of the issue. It's totally DISHONEST! I've grown contemptuous of discussions of the issue, because they aren't really discussions at all.

reply to post by RedRebel5

I don't know.
Honestly. I can't envision the scenario. T'is why I posed the question.

reply to post by Scytherius

Actually, what we need is to divide the U.S. into two Nations.

Say what? Is this not why we had the civil war?

I think that this has been resolved already......

There is so much of a disgusting attitude towards my country around here it makes me sick.....Yeah it has it's downs, but hey it has it's ups too...............

Originally posted by Freeborn
We've ousted tyrants before, and we'll do it again if, or when, necessary.

Yes, when we were armed... or at least, when sufficient numbers of ordinary citizens were. I'm interested to know by what manner you think we would oust tyrants again. I'm a strong believer in educating people and civil disobedience before turning to violence, but I don't think the tyrants will go out without an actual, physical fight.

What then - bread knives and tea trays versus automatic firearms and Kevlar?

Originally posted by Freeborn
Relaxation of UK gun laws will lead to more deaths, we don't need or want it.

I agree the UK is violent. I don't think we are inherently more violent as people than Americans are, but we are more cramped and with closer proximity to one another. So you're right that a relaxation of gun laws may produce more violent crime here than in America. But it still begs the question of how to defend our liberty and Constitution(s).

By the way, this is one of the reasons I'm so against immigration. We're already way, way overcrowded, and that keeps tensions at a horrible high at all times.

Maybe I should have been born in America.

The Prez is trying to gut the military and defense as we speak. Well he said he was going to do it, but he wanted to destroy our economy and put us all on govt health rationing first. And he's doing it in the name of budget cuts and reducing the deficit.

The United States' military, which has acted as the world's security team for decades, is destined to become a "hollow force" with fewer personnel and weapons systems, slowed modernization and reduced readiness under President Obama's strategy, an analysis is predicting, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.

The analysis by a team of defense experts from the American Enterprise Institute said that the Obama administration is looking at potentially $900 billion in defense cuts over a decade to protect such social entitlement programs as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the health care reform law from serious deficit and debt reduction efforts now under consideration.

www.wnd.com...


How hard is it to understand that this Marxist Prez is on a mission to destroy national sovereignty, our ability as a nation to protect itself against invaders, and also the ability of the people to defend themselves. People who are peaceable often believe that the Socialists are doing this to bring peace to the world, but nothing could be further from the truth. The goal is a One World Totalitarian govt where the ruling elite have all the resources and the people are slaves.


Here's the Prez agenda before he was elected...to show how naive the sheeple have been in listening to him



Let's see the Prez cut his own body guard team if he's serious about cutting defense.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


If you want to talk about the military and your ridiculous right wing delusions, start another post. Your post has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

reply to post by whywhynot

By the way, good with your fists? If you look you will see that the USA holds twice the championship belts as UK.

But with a population of five times that of the UK wouldn't you thus expect to have five times the championships belts?

reply to post by whywhynot

Hmmmm, Brits weren't so tough or better fighters in 1776 and in 1943 when we baled you all out.

1776 was essentially wealthy Europeans arguing with each other about tax.

And as for 1943?
You eventually got involved when your hand was forced and you were pushed off the proverbial fence you were sitting on and exploiting both sides for profit.
If you care to study even basic history you would be aware that we stood alone against Hitler until you were attacked at Pearl Harbour, which was in December 1941 not 1943!

reply to post by 27jd

On your little island, it's pretty easy to keep stuff out.

But surely as we are such a little island it should be easy for larger, more populous nations and alliances to invade us.
Despite many trying no-one has successfully invaded this 'little island' for very close to a thousand years.
No mean feat I assure you.

Try sharing a huge border with Mexico,

Now that I don't envy you.
You should try sharing a tunnel and a narrow sea passage with France!

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin



I must admit seeing this thread degenerate into a UK - USA slanging match is pretty sad and shows none of us in a good light.

Can't we just leave it at 'We respect your right to bear arms, please respect our right not to'.
Pretty much sums it up for me.

I mean let’s face we Britt’s can Drink you Americans under the table and that’s all that really matters.

However, this is very true, Americans, as a rule of thumb, are crap drinkers.

Originally posted by ClintK
I'm sick of this whole issue. Two things are always ignored by pro-gun people:

1. It clearly says the right is because America needs a "well regulated militia." in 1789, that might have been true. The militias were essentially America's military -- at least it's army. We don't need that any more as
we have the most powerful military in the world. But, again, it just gets IGNORED. As though those
words weren't even there. It's ridiculous.

This issues is well discussed in the federalist papers. These issues are seperate and discussed as seperate issues.

The american military durring the war was made up of regular troops. Some of the militia had some training whiel some were just groups of lightly armed citizens. The issue of citizens forming up ad hoc militias with thier own personal arms was also discussed.

This statement that the militia was essentially Americas military shows a lack of knowlege on the subject and this certainly extends to your understanding about the rest of this issue.

Originally posted by ClintK
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

If you want to talk about the military and your ridiculous right wing delusions, start another post. Your post has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Excuse me????? Right Wing delusions? The right to bear arms IS defense, and the defense of this country is the govts responsibility. You liberals think you have a right to tell everybody how to behave, yet you feel you have a right to be rude and belligerent. I'm here to tell you that I have as much right to my opinion as you do yours.
You appear to be uniformed as to the connection between the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, and this President's obvious desire to ruin the country.

I'm guessing the real problem is I hit a nerve because you know the Prez is on a mission to take away the arms of the people and the right to defend themselves. What happens if we default and the Chinese decide to take our land???? Oh ok you are fine with that and will be happy to be part of the Chinese empire.
Please let me know how that's workin out for ya.




Enjoy your new life as a Chinese Communist
'
Press ONE for Chinese?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Law biding US Citizens have the lawful right to keep and bear firearms!

Far more than "law abiding citizens" have the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is not a granted civil right, but is a prohibitive Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting government from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. There is no requirement of citizenship in order to enjoy or exercise this right.

I then reached into my pocket and produced my own "Legally owned hand gun"...

A "legally owned hand gun" is a civil right and should not be confused with a natural unalienable right. It is, in fact, the "legal" owner of guns that tend to piss all over the Second Amendment by acquiescing to dubious regulatory schemes and licensing schemes, none of which were empowerment's granted to government regarding the right to keep and bear arms.

Indeed, the primary focus of the Second Amendment for most people has been the right to keep and bear guns, when the whole intent of the Second Amendment is to keep the populace well armed in an attempt to keep tyranny at bay. Either from invading nations, or - and especially - from domestic usurper's.

Understanding this intent, it is arguable that given the state of the military industrial complex, that the people have the right to keep and bear WMD's, biological weapons, Harrier Jets, tanks, and all other sorts of weapons if individuals hope to have a chance in hell in defending the Constitutionally mandated freedom of their nation.

Thank you for this post you have clearly explained the meaning of the second amedment. this is exactly what the forefathers intended. Thanks for your always clear thinking I always enjoy reading your posts.


To Slayer, I agree with you 100% what the anti second amendment people fail to realize is that it is almost always illegal guns used in crime.Gun regulation has absolutely no bearing on reducing crime, all it does is reduce "we the peoples", ability to defend ourselves against the owners of illegal guns.

In my opinion, I think that taking action and changing our government back to the way it was intended would be a difficult thing to do due to the following. The problem is that alot of American people dont even know that they are being governed in a wrongful way.

A majority of people would actually stand against us and like you said another civil war would be at hand. People need to turn off their tv and educate themselves about the truth in what is happening right now. I've heard people say they dont want to know whats going on and dont care, they just want to live their life and not worry about anything.

Others I think are too ignorant to educate themselves due to fear. Fear is holding us back. This is a huge challenge. How could we get the truth to the people? and would people even believe it?

reply to post by Logarock


From Wikipedia:
"When the war began, the 13 colonies lacked a professional army or navy. Each colony sponsored local militia. Militiamen were lightly armed, had little training, and usually did not have uniforms. Their units served for only a few weeks or months at a time, were reluctant to travel far from home and thus were unavailable for extended operations, and lacked the training and discipline of soldiers with more experience. If properly used, however, their numbers could help the Continental armies overwhelm smaller British forces, as at the battles of Concord, Bennington and Saratoga, and the siege of Boston. Both sides used partisan warfare but the Americans effectively suppressed Loyalist activity when British regulars were not in the area.[12]

Seeking to coordinate military efforts, the Continental Congress established (on paper) a regular army on June 14, 1775, and appointed George Washington as commander-in-chief. The development of the Continental Army was always a work in progress, and Washington used both his regulars and state militia throughout the war."

NO ARMY at the beginning. And not only that, it was mostly militia members who made up the first.

Heavenz you're quick to accuse another of ignorance, aren't you?

Hope that glass house is holding up well.

Originally posted by ClintK
I'm sick of this whole issue. Two things are always ignored by pro-gun people:

1. It clearly says the right is because America needs a "well regulated militia." in 1789, that might have been true. The militias were essentially America's military -- at least it's army. We don't need that any more as
we have the most powerful military in the world. But, again, it just gets IGNORED. As though those
words weren't even there. It's ridiculous.

2. The pro-gun people make as though there is no such thing as a reasonable restriction on just what can be owned, and ANY attempt to do so is part of an effort to ban guns entirely. That is not only absurd, it
is SO delusional it frightens me that these are the people so rabidly pro-gun.

So it's not going to be an honest debate.

For the record, I not only own several guns, I have a Missouri concealed carry permit. I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter. I am also a responsible citizen who feels some proposed regulation of gun ownership is entirely reasonable.

But, like I say, it's pointless to debate the issue when one side totally ignores certain aspects of the issue. It's totally DISHONEST! I've grown contemptuous of discussions of the issue, because they aren't really discussions at all.

edit on 24-7-2011 by ClintK because: spacing

So, you're a gun owner beating up "pro-gun" people???? What's your trip guy???? Want to be a Chinese military guy? Check out the vid I posted.

Man such a long and interesting read. First off folks with out fire arms life as we know it would not exist, First off the creation of firearms put the ptb in the middle age on equal footing with the rabble. All that time and money it took to train and equip a knight could be wasted by a peasant with a gun. Ohh there went the monopoly on power by landed lords, their commoners could kill them easy. Second advances in firearms went on and gave us as a species the ability to start machining percision parts. Tool are just that tools, whether they are objects or people they exist to be used to accomplish something!
And by the way a army with tanks and such is still vulnerable to a group with "just" firearms. High tech toys need fuel and parts and support crews to maintain and fix them. Use a little Sun Tzu thinking.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ClintK
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

If you want to talk about the military and your ridiculous right wing delusions, start another post. Your post has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

Excuse me????? Right Wing delusions? The right to bear arms IS defense, and the defense of this country is the govts responsibility. You liberals think you have a right to tell everybody how to behave, yet you feel you have a right to be rude and belligerent. I'm here to tell you that I have as much right to my opinion as you do yours.
You appear to be uniformed as to the connection between the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, and this President's obvious desire to ruin the country.

I'm guessing the real problem is I hit a nerve because you know the Prez is on a mission to take away the arms of the people and the right to defend themselves. What happens if we default and the Chinese decide to take our land???? Oh ok you are fine with that and will be happy to be part of the Chinese empire.
Please let me know how that's workin out for ya.

Enjoy your new life as a Chinese Communist
'
Press ONE for Chinese?

edit on 24-7-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

You clearly don't understand the issue. The right to bear arms IS NOT how we defend our country. We have something called a military. DUH!!

Originally posted by freethinker123
reply to post by Logarock

 

Hope you don't mind I'm going to repeat my questions to you from a post I made a couple of pages back:

Just got to ask a few questions...

I've heard the argument that guns are used to protect US citizens from their government.

First off does anybody really believe that small arms (in this day and age) can protect them against the most technologically advanced forces on the planet?

Second why would anybody need to be protected against the government you voted for? Does it mean that some don't support democracy? I read that some talk about others around the world rising up also against their government as well - is rising against the government a communist revolution against democracy? What kind of situation do you think would happen after getting rid of government?

End

I understand your post, and the historical reasoning for the current situation - you put it quite well. But my final question is whether it is relevant today?

The first part of your question is asking sort of like whats the use. The american military is so strong that it would be useless to have private weapons anyway. This is irrelevant on one hand and all the more reason to maintain the 2nd on the other.

I feel the 2nd is not the primary avenue to "change" the government. Most dont want to change the consititution by force or not. Folks that want to have a revolution for reasons other than to reaffirm the consitution are not anyone I would join up with. So for me the 2nd is mostly a right I reserve in case of power gone mad, unconstitutional use of force against the citizens ect ect. The 2nd DOES NOT have a build in licence for sedition.

reply to post by ClintK


Clint, it's clear I understand this issue far better than you. I understand both our right to bear arms, and the right of our country to be safe from foreign invaders. You apparently do not get that Obama is destroying BOTH with his idiotic Marxist ideology.

What's the point of this thread?

Yes that is the second amendment but you don't state anything other than that. Are you implying it's going away or something?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


See, this is the problem. You can't make simple, elemental distinctions. You can be pro-gun ownership but think it's a bad idea to let people buy machine guns. You can be pro-gun ownership but believe automatic weapons should be registered.

Everything is B&W to you. Sorry, but the world is more complicated and detailed than that.