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

reply to post by SLAYER69


After reading this thread, I tried to imagine my life without guns/self-defense weapons and wondered what that would be like. I wouldn't like it, not one bit because I would feel defenseless, weak and incompetent in not having the ability to protect myself or family, especially my kids. I have the right to defend my life and loved ones and knowing I couldn't take down a big, strong guy or crazed methhead or any other criminal who wants to do me harm, I feel I would have an edge if I warned him off with my handgun. I don't think I'm being patriotic or religious for feeling this way, it's simply a survival instinct.

Originally posted by zookey

Originally posted by th3dudeabides
You don't want to see or experience what will happen if the Armed American Citizenry all showed up packing heat in a peaceful yet very armed demand for restoration of the constitution, law and accountability. It would be a civil war. Those in power will never voluntarily give it up. Freedom and the lawful exercise of it, must be taken back, and vigilantly guarded.

So under what conditions do American's decide to do something and exercise the rights they continually huff puff and rub in the rest of the world's faces?

I would really like to know because that is all I see on these forums, and dare anybody quesiton America and Americans.

So, what is the conditions that action is taken?

edit on 23-7-2011 by zookey because: (no reason given)

The United States Of GOD Damm America is no older than 200 yrs old you talk nonsense thats why you have so many deaths in your country because of guns it wont belong untill you can have a gau 8 pointing out your window , you suck

You know what I find amazing (despite the fact that so many Americans are incapable of defending themselves without a deadly weapon) - is the fact that somehow you think this makes you superior to those people who CAN defend themselves without a gun.

And yet you brag about it.

Take your guns Thats what I say its to easy to pull a trigger than to pull a punch you Americans are to gung ho if you dont understand it you shoot it

Originally posted by ClintK
Hey, ThirdEyeofHorus, you're right. Forget everything I said. You're 100 percent sane and are probably one of the few people in this country who understands EXACTLY what is going on. I just didn't understand your genius before. But now I see.

Condescension is not a winning blow...

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.

It really sounds like you just want everyone to "ignore" everything except what you tell them. That's neither debate nor discussion. That's indoctrination.

Originally posted by salamileycum
I am English born and bred , Ok we have problems in this country with our goverment and I can tell you they suck just like any other goverment around the world the problem is the people in goverment are sad Bas tARDS they are power hungry the crave for power and domination , as they dont no what else to do with thenselves

I'm with you so far.

all I can Say is Adolf Hitler was right

No he wasn't, he was an evil, horrible bastard and saying that is an insult to all the brave people who fought against him.
I am ashamed that you are the same nationality as me and are a disgrace to England and Britain.

what he did and that mother F ==cker in norway did the same and we all should in the western world should learn from is brave act

Brave act?
Killing a load of defenceless teenagers?

What he did was undefendable and he is another evil, horrible bastard.

left wingers well is there an answer you tell me

right wingers, left wingers - two sides of the same coin in my book.

What on earth has anything what you posted got to do with The Second Amendment to The American Constitution?

Originally posted by queenofsheba
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

After reading this thread, I tried to imagine my life without guns/self-defense weapons and wondered what that would be like. I wouldn't like it, not one bit because I would feel defenseless, weak and incompetent in not having the ability to protect myself or family, especially my kids. I have the right to defend my life and loved ones and knowing I couldn't take down a big, strong guy or crazed methhead or any other criminal who wants to do me harm, I feel I would have an edge if I warned him off with my handgun. I don't think I'm being patriotic or religious for feeling this way, it's simply a survival instinct.

If you feel like that sunshine , GET OUT OF AMERICA THEN

reply to post by Wolfenz


One would imagine just what the Founding Fathers used. Rifles, pistols, etc etc.

reply to post by Freeborn


Bravo.

Anyone claiming to be English and then worshipping Hitler or that Norwegian killer had better not cross my path, what absolute idiocy..

/sickening.

I'd be further worried if the grammar and spelling was slightly more coherent, but alas...

Originally posted by salamileycum

Originally posted by queenofsheba
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

After reading this thread, I tried to imagine my life without guns/self-defense weapons and wondered what that would be like. I wouldn't like it, not one bit because I would feel defenseless, weak and incompetent in not having the ability to protect myself or family, especially my kids. I have the right to defend my life and loved ones and knowing I couldn't take down a big, strong guy or crazed methhead or any other criminal who wants to do me harm, I feel I would have an edge if I warned him off with my handgun. I don't think I'm being patriotic or religious for feeling this way, it's simply a survival instinct.

If you feel like that sunshine , GET OUT OF AMERICA THEN

Nah, ain't gettin' out of America, SUNSHINE...Fact is, there are bad guys and to think otherwise, makes one ignorant.

Originally posted by p00hbearAs a Brit member I'm intregued by the whole US gun bearing issue, I don't know anyone who owns a gun and my guess is that 99% of brits don't want to own firearms.

Almost everyone I know owns a firearm; most are farmers and ranchers who use them for various reasons. Hunting is one, defense is another. As for defense, here in the county we have 10 deputies to cover about 700 square miles of area and 10-12 people. The little towns may or may not have a police force. It can take 45-min to an hour for a response to a call depending on where a deputy is on patrol at any given point. Being armed out here is the only way to have a hope of responding to a crime.

When is it legal to fire a weapon with intent to kill?

Can you fire at someone for illegally entering a property?

Here we have both the no retreat clause and the castle doctrine, which means that you have the right to hold your ground as long as you are not trespassing. You can shoot someone here with immunity from prosecution if they are unlawfully attempting to gain entry to your home, car, or even a tent and hotel room. Anywhere you lawfully occupy for an evening.

They do not have to complete the act nor do you have to wait for them to actually cross the threshold. Also, if the person has threatened you or you feel threatened you do not have to run; you can defend yourself with lethal force if they continue to advance toward you.

As for an intruder actually inside your home, they are assumed to be a threat and I do not have to prove they have any intent to harm me or my family before I shoot them dead. The fact they are inside your home unwanted is sufficient for the law here. This removes the pesky – “he only wanted to take your stuff” defense so often used. I don’t have to try and ascertain if he has a weapon or whatever in a half wake state. Thank you Missouri for removing that dilemma for me.

As for liability and civil issues; the state has to prove that any reasonable person wouldn’t feel so threatened in the particular circumstances for any suit to advance. It is a heavy burden of proof for the state and leans heavily in favor of the person who was defending themselves.

You can affect citizen arrest here as well by detaining anyone in the act of a crime with physical force if necessary to include restraint and the threat of lethal force. Actually shooting someone who runs though is not allowed. However, should they advance toward you, you can blow them away.

You can’t shoot a thief unless you feel threatened. Again, it is the states burden to prove that in the circumstance it was unreasonable for you to feel that way. I imagine anyone on your property at night with anything in their hands would meet the reasonable person threshold.

This is one of the reasons I chose to live where I do – the criminals (of which here there are very few BTW) do not have the advantage.

Is there any control over the storage of guns and ammo?

Sure - but I doubt what you are used to.

Quick Reference: Missouri Gun Laws

Rifles and Shotguns

• Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No
• Registration of rifles and shotguns? No
• Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No
• Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No

Handguns
• Permit to purchase a handgun? No
• Registration of handguns? No
• Licensing of owners of handguns? No
• Permit to carry handguns? Yes

State Requirements

Purchase
No state permit is required for the purchase of rifles, shotguns or handguns.

It is unlawful to knowingly sell, lease, loan, give away or deliver a firearm or ammunition to any person who is not lawfully entitled to possess one. It is unlawful to recklessly sell, lease, loan, give away or deliver a firearm or ammunition to a person who is intoxicated.

It is unlawful to knowingly sell, lease, loan, give away or deliver any firearm to a person who is not eighteen years old without the consent of the custodial parent or guardian.

Possession

• There are no state licensing requirements for the possession of a rifle, shotgun or handgun.
• It is a misdemeanor to possess an unloaded firearm when intoxicated.
• It is a felony to possess a loaded firearm while intoxicated.
• It is unlawful for a person convicted of or confined for a dangerous felony or an attempt to commit a dangerous felony to possess a concealable firearm for five years after such conviction or confinement.
• It is unlawful for a fugitive from justice, a habitually intoxicated or drugged person, or a person currently adjudged mentally incompetent to possess a concealable firearm.

Carry

• It is unlawful to carry a firearm concealed on or about one’s person without a concealed carry endorsement on the Missouri driver’s or non-driver’s license or a valid permit to carry concealed firearms issued by any state.
• This prohibition does not apply to possession in a person’s dwelling, while hunting or while traveling in a continuous journey through the state.
• Law enforcement officers, corrections officers, probation and parole officers, some judges; process servers and marshals and members of the armed forces or the national guard while performing their official duties are exempt from this prohibition.
• Persons over the age twenty-one years of age or older may transport a concealable firearm in the passenger compartment of a vehicle as long as the firearm is lawfully possessed.
• Any person twenty-three years of age or older who is a citizen of the United States and who has resided in Missouri for six months or who is a member of the armed forces stationed in Missouri or who is a spouse of such member of the military can submit an application for a certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement for the Missouri driver’s or non-driver’s license.

I don't know. I don't live in America. I know it is a very large country and its easier to get into life threatening situations. I guess I don't oppose gun ownership. But I think regulation isn't a bad idea. I have seen vids where some kids bought a couple of uzi's without any proper ID. Just like that, walk into a store and out with an uzi. That is kinda absurd if you ask me.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
You know what I find amazing (despite the fact that so many Americans are incapable of defending themselves without a deadly weapon) - is the fact that somehow you think this makes you superior to those people who CAN defend themselves without a gun.

And yet you brag about it.

The assumption that Americans who own guns cannot defend themselves by other means is a bad one. My right to own a firearm wont prevent me from getting into a good fistfight. There is a time and a place for both. Bringing a gun to some fights would be irresponsible, unnecessary, and stupid. For example all this back and forth jawjabbing about UK vs USA could escalate into a good brawl, no guns required. There is plenty of self defense going in America that doesn't involve guns, dont overgeneralize here.
However when it comes to self defense of my self and family, I feel alot safer knowing I have a tool to help me do the job. I don't care if you're 6'4" 220 lb and a certified UFC fighter, thats not going to save you in all situations. If I am outnumbered, or being assaulted by someone with a weapon, gun knife or otherwise, I would rather have the best means of protection available to me. If someone breaks into my house, sure i might be able to knock them out with a good blow to the head, but why put myself at risk? Especially if he might have a gun as well. Criminals are going to ignore gun control regardless, so why put the law abiding citizens at a disadvantage?
And finally, we don't feel superior because we own guns. This thread was not started as a UK bashing. Anti-gun threads are started all the time, and with the recent events in Norway, I'm sure the anti gun crowd will be taking full advantage. I think Slayer's intention with the OP was to put a thread out there stating the other side of the argument, without it having to come in the form of defense in an anti gun thread. It has just devolved slightly into the back and forth shots at one's nation. I respect anyone's right to not own a gun, your call. I also respect myself enough to responsibly own a firearm and not leave it to the police to defend me.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Amendment 2: - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note 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.



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

edit on 23-7-2011 by SLAYER69 because: Spelling: Note to self, MORE COFFEE

So the second amendment says the people have the right to keep and bear arms, but you say, "Law abiding US citizen have the lawful right to keep and bear firearms!". Now those are two differnt things, so why can't some one else have their opion of what the second amendment says? All the second amendment says is the right of the people to keep and bear arms nothing about being a US citizen are being lawful you added those. Why, can't other people add things?

reply to post by ClintK

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.

Quite the contrary, it is precisely because the United States has a military power no where near Constitutionally mandated, and very obviously a threat to other nations, that it becomes a threat to its nation. This is why it is so damn necessary to make sure the people remained armed, and given the nature of the U.S. modern military heavily armed.

Frankly, I would prefer to see the standing armies, not at all Constitutionally mandated, stripped of their might, but that sure as hell isn't going to happen until more American's begin to understand their profound responsibility to secure their rights, each and every one.

Your naive belief that the U.S. military is some benign force that can totally be trusted is hardly a voice of wisdom.

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.

Now let's take this paragraph and compare it to a later paragraph you wrote:

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.

For the record, regulation of gun ownership is not a well regulated militia. Just saying, since you claim to be such an ardent Second Amendment supporter.

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.

Yeah, like you. This is why it is called ignorance, not because it is knowledge one cannot know, but because it is knowledge one can know but ignores it anyway. Your ignorance is on full display.

I own guns and work security, and the things I have seen your normal everyday people do when they think nobody is looking is just insane. There are definitely a lot of people that carry concealed that end up in a situation where if it weren't for their gun toting *ss's ..innocent people would have def been robbed, raped, and or murdered. end of story.

Originally posted by ASeeker343
Anti-gun threads are started all the time, and with the recent events in Norway, I'm sure the anti gun crowd will be taking full advantage.

Do they have the right to bear arms in Norway? If not, it seems to me the events in Norway were a strike against the anti-gun crowd. That a-hole was able to take his time, and calmly shoot and kill nearly a hundred people, without having to be concerned about watching his back or have to worry about stopping for a second to reload. When a bad guy gets a gun in Europe, and decides to go the route this guy did, they in effect become gods, able to take lives with impunity. Here, not so much...

Seems some whackjob decided to shoot up a church. However, an armed woman decided to end said whackjob’s plans. Ahab notes that:

Colorado state law requires that an armed security guard who is not a member of law enforcement must be in possession of a concealed carry permit. I am currently in the process of determining whether the guard at New Life was an off-duty cop, or a civilian volunteer with a carry permit. Because no media have referred to the guard as an off duty police officer, my hunch is that he (or she, I suppose) is just a regular concerned citizen like us.

As Glenn said: People don’t stop killers. People with guns do

Well, armed citizens have a reasonable record at stopping mass murderers:

1 Tyler, Texas: Shooter on the loose. Mark Wilson hears the noise and grabs a gun. He intervenes and saves the life of one man (who turns out to be the shooters’ son). He also drew fire from the murderer and likely saved more lives. Sadly, Mr. Wilson was murdered on the scene.

2 Tacoma, WA: Brendan “Dan” McKown was delivering a bank deposit for Excalibur Cutlery, a mall gift store, when gunshots scattered shoppers at noon in Tacoma. Dan McKown was an armed CCW holder. Witnesses state that McKown stood about 20 feet from the gunman when he faced him and drew his own pistol before being shot. Whether he spoke to the gunman is unknown. “Our understanding is that Dan drew his weapon and confronted the gunman,” his stepmother, Beverly McKown, said during a news conference Tuesday at Tacoma General Hospital. “Dan is always one who believed in protecting people and he put his life on the line for other people,” McKown’s father said. “His actions and the actions of others like him may have prevented additional casualties by confronting the aggression and possibly changing the gunman’s action early in the conflict.”

3 courtesy of Mr. Burnside Pete Odighizuwa. He’s the man who killed three innocent people at the Appalachian School of Law. But was likely stopped by two armed students who had to run to their cars to get their guns. There’s some dispute as to what caused Pete O. to surrender because he was also out of ammo.

4 Another, via comments, was the Utah mall shooting:

An off-duty police officer having an early Valentine’s Day dinner with his wife was credited Tuesday with helping stop a rampage in a crowded shopping mall by an 18-year-old gunman who killed five people before he was cut down.

He was off duty. Good thing he disregarded the mall’s no gun policy that day. And another one:

5 In Pearl, Mississippi:

Vice Principal Joel Myrick held his Colt .45 point blank to the high school boy’s head. Last week, he told me what it was like. “I said ‘why are you shooting my kids?’ He said it was because nobody liked him and everything seemed hopeless,” Myrick said. “Then I asked him his name. He said ‘you know me, Mr. Myrick. Remember? I gave you a discount on your pizza delivery last week.”

6 another: A knife-wielding grocery store employee attacked eight co-workers Friday, seriously injuring five before a witness pulled a gun and stopped him, police said.

7 Allen Crum, an armed citizen, was deputized when Charles Whitman climbed a tower and started shooting people. Read Mr. Crum’s account here. He used a borrowed rifle.

8 Kenneth Gage.
www.saysuncle.com...

another list of examples...

happilyamerican.com...

double

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by ClintK

 

Hi ClintK.

Perhaps you should read the link in my sig.

Every single point you made is flat out wrong.

Please help yourself in denying ignorance.

Thanks!

edit on 7/24/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/24/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

There's no link showing up in your signature.

The problem is, I know I'm NOT wrong. I read a lot of different sources. You evidently don't and want to put your stock in something which was clearly originally written as a piece of propaganda.

Good luck with that.

Originally posted by 27jd


Do they have the right to bear arms in Norway? If not, it seems to me the events in Norway were a strike against the anti-gun crowd. That a-hole was able to take his time, and calmly shoot and kill nearly a hundred people, without having to be concerned about watching his back or have to worry about stopping for a second to reload. When a bad guy gets a gun in Europe, and decides to go the route this guy did, they in effect become gods, able to take lives with impunity. Here, not so much...

I completely agree with you, just one or two people on that island with a gun could have changed that story and saved alot of lives. You cant completely remove something, just outlaw it. Look how well thats working in the US with the war on drugs... People will find a way to get around the laws. This point falls on deaf ears though, and the fact that he used a gun to kill people will still bring the anti gun crowd out, regardless of the logic of their arguments.