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

key word: amendment. it wasn't even in the original constitution. it's not a "right". it was put in and it can just as easily be taken out.

but i agree, no one has the right to prevent you from defending yourself. which is what the second amendment really is.

the ability to defend yourself with arms from people who would be armed. be it a dictator, a government that seeks to control and oppress you, or a thief or robber with a pistol.

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

LOL yeah ill just go and buy some plutonium and build a bomb, what are u high?

What? Was President Roosevelt and all those damned physicists high when they built these bombs? Diagnosing a symptom as madness is missing the point of madness. Madness is the disease not the symptom. It was madness for the United States to ever build weapons of mass destruction, and the clear intent of the Second Amendment - that being a populace have the means by which to protect themselves from aggressive tyrants - means that the if the U.S. Military has the right to weapons of mass destruction, then so do the people. If you cannot understand where the madness began, we will never even get close to fixing that problem.

reply to post by Evanzsayz


Well, I pose this to you - With all the supposed rights of the general American public being infringed upon, what exactly has been done to change any of it?

You have the rights to form a Militia, and bear arms, yet not once have I seen a well formed Militia take on the Government when your rights and freedoms have been trampled upon. So it looks like those rights given to you by the US Constitution have worked really well so far, yes???

reply to post by Evanzsayz


not to get too far off topic but im honestly not aware of any law per se that says you cant but if wrong id love to learn give it a shot ya never know you could build a better one

reply to post by SLAYER69


I find it quite funny when non-americans ask us what are we going to do about our gun rights and my answer is at least we still have guns, you all let your governments take your guns away even for hunting.

Originally posted by TerribleTeam2
reply to post by Evanzsayz

 

Well, I pose this to you - With all the supposed rights of the general American public being infringed upon, what exactly has been done to change any of it?

You have the rights to form a Militia, and bear arms, yet not once have I seen a well formed Militia take on the Government when your rights and freedoms have been trampled upon. So it looks like those rights given to you by the US Constitution have worked really well so far, yes???

Because the majority of the people are not suicidal, let me tell you if SHTF there will be militas all over

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I'm an average american not a politician, high paid military officer or scientists so no I dont have the right to bear a nuclear bomb

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
Ah, yes. The Right to Bear Arms.

Only back then they had Muskets in mind. Not semi automatic weapons or any other deadly weapon that nobody needs.

But hey, that's the fun of taking advantage and abusing the Constitution. Enjoy it, folks

With that logic then there should not be any freedome of the internet the tv and radio for speach because when they wrote the first ammendment all they had were printing presses.

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I'm an average american not a politician, high paid military officer or scientists so no I dont have the right to bear a nuclear bomb

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but once all doubt is removed, there is no more reason to give benefit.

You are missing my point. The point is that not even military officer's and/or scientists have the right to keep and bear weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of that magnitude go beyond the scope of defense. Threatening mass destruction of other people is not a valid defense. It is an act of unlawful aggression.

No one has the right to keep and bear nuclear bombs, not you, not I, and most certainly not governments! This is my point, and I used the clear intent of the Second Amendment to illustrate the importance of this point.

Originally posted by TerribleTeam2
Well, I pose this to you - With all the supposed rights of the general American public being infringed upon, what exactly has been done to change any of it?

Because the truth is, it's not that bad yet. The 2nd amendment is designed to prevent our government from reaching the levels of oppression that say Syria, or Bahrain are on. At this point, the majority of this country buy into the 2 party scam, and think their vote counts. We can, for the most part stage a demonstration critical of our government, and as long as it remains peaceful, without the army opening fire on us.

Originally posted by p00hbear
As a Brit member I'm intregued by the whole US gun bearing issue, I don't know anyone who own's a gun and my guess is that 99% of brits don't want to own firearms.

I would probobally agree with you
I am in the 1%
I am a expat brit who lives in Canada
and now own a lot of guns

reply to post by thedarktower


"seriously........you got a gun held to you and you still think everyone should be allowed a gun? if that was the case where i stayed, we all would be dead. That is the truth."

Actually, if all the law-abiding citizens carried guns, the perps would hesitate to pull any crap. One MUST assume that the vast majority of the people in any nation are good people; and, that the bad people are in the minority. Given equal armamant, the fould people wouldn't last very long.

Originally posted by randomname
key word: amendment. it wasn't even in the original constitution. it's not a "right". it was put in and it can just as easily be taken out.

The 1st 10 Amendments are called "The Bill Of RIGHTS!" Go back to school.

No wonder Obama got elected.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
We get the issue, American are allowed to hold guns in case the King of England decides to take over America.

But so are other other countries. Notice how other countries don't start threads like this?

Wonder why?

No offence Slayer- but what is the point of this thread? People get killed by guns on a daily basis, we KNOW you have guns, we hear about it every day. We also get bored to the back teeth of hearing about how a wife shoots her husband or how a bullied student decides to take it out on his school, or how a shop clerk decides to kill a robber.

Big deal.

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

People get killed by cars too, but you dont see anyone trying to take them away...

reply to post by freethinker123

Why by the way do you need weapons against your own elected government?

Because the SCOTUS ruled that you have no right to secession. However, there is a right to revolution according to the SCOTUS. So, no state or large group of citizens can legally seperate themselves from the union of states without revolution. The only other option would be for massive numbers of people to leave the land of their birth.

The founding fathers wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

They acknowledged that at times the bonds of government must be thrown off. It is not a matter to be done for light hearted, trivial, or transient reasons. However, who can argue that despotism and corruption can not hide behind a face of nobility? Who can say that when elections are multi-million dollar contests swayed more by donations from corporations than voter concern despotism and fuedalism is not a real danger?

I am not saying that it is time for revolution. Just don't forget that Saddam Hussein won 100% of the vote in his last election. Democracy can be corrupted and used as a fool's diversion,

I don't understand this. Who are the professionals? If the (US) government waged war against certain US citizens the professionals would be under their control.

When the British waged war with colonials they controlled the professionals until France showed up. Libya controlled the professionals untill we showed up.

And I can't see how you can compare the US military with all of its technology today with that of a battlefield situation in a far away country in the 1960 - 1975 period.

There are places in Afghanistan and Iraq that American soldiers still have not gotten "under control." Rag tag militias with the help of Pakistan, Iran, and Syria held the American war machine to a virtual stale mate in both countries. We are not leaving because there is nothing left to do. We are leaving because there is nothing else we can do.

Why would modern Americans on their own soill not be able to do the same thing? Would there not be a single country willing to send aid and resources? The American government has lost control of portions of Arizonia and New Mexico. They aren't fighting some super sophisticated army. They are fighting drug cartels with a few thousand mercenaries. With literally tens of millions of Americans possessing military training would it be any different if they banded together?

All countries of the world have problems with governments, but is your government the worst one in the world so people must be armed to try to stop them coming to kill you?

A person (or government) does not have to take your life to kill you. Some fates are far worse than death.

Is our government the worst? Nope. I highly doubt that Eygpt's government was the worst in the world. I would think the government of Libya wasn't nearly as bad as Rwanda a few years ago. Yet in both cases the people felt that revolution was necessary. A government doesn't need to be the worst to deserve being overthrown.

I don't think it is time for a revolution here. However, there are two old quotes that we must remember.

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster

I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. - John Dalberg-Acton

You are saying that guns were created to hunt?

Nope read the section you quoted.

They were built for battle and adapted to serve daily life in a useful way.

reply to post by Cocasinpry

Let's not fail to acknowledge the real problem here; the reason why such a person would want to steal money in the first place. We have to deal with the real problem and a handgun isn't a solution to that.

You are right. We need to adress the social and economic reasons that lead to actions like robbery. However, that does not mean we should take away the right to defense. When a man approached me with a long knife and demanded I hand him my wallet and my family's groceries what should I have done?

Should I have gave him my family's food and my money? Should my family have starved? Should I have hoped that he would act humanely and with reason after I handed everything to him?

What I did was pull my pistol, that I carry with a legal permit, and gave him an option. He had the option to continue threatening my life and my family's survival and get shot. He also had the option to leave and not be wounded. He chose to leave and I went home instead of to the hospital or morgue.

So, untill we find the solution that makes the world a perfect and non violent place, I will keep defending myself.

Can you really blame those having to do what-ever is required to do in order to get what they 'need' in order to 'survive'?

I have been homeless and I have been broke. There are ways to pool together with family and community to survive. The problem is that a lot of these people are not just doing what it takes to survive. The average person engaging in "gun violence" has 11 previous arrests. Many of them are career criminals and gang bangers that dropped out of school. Most of them chose their life path and did not have it thrust upon them.

We do need certain social programs to help at risk kids. We need safe places for them to fill their time with worth while activities. Keeping a kid out of trouble is usually as easy as keeping them occupied. However, there are many segments of society that find living life as a criminal acceptable and preferable. There have always been those groups in society. The underbelly of society will never disappear. No society has ever been free of murder, theft, and assault.

Well, at least we won't have gun totting "crazy people" running around trying to kill and rob other people just so their loved ones can get the medication they need to stay alive.

According to, Homicide trends in the United States, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 17 2007 94.4% of "gun murders" are gang related. It isn't about people trying to get medicine for grandma. It is about people that decide to live as criminals killing each other.

reply to post by Scytherius

I own guns and believe people should be allowed to own them for home protection. But in all my years of Prosecuting I had EXACTLY ONE case where someone was able to defend themselves with a gun.

I have defended my own life twice and the life of my neighbor once, All three times were found justified and never went before the prosecutor or grand jury. There was no reason for the incident to go past the investigation phase.

The fact is the vast majority of GUD situations never involve a shot being fired. So, there is usually no need for anything more than a field interview and documenttion. So, you wouldn't even see most of those cases unless you just like perusing the police logs.

However, when some idiot violates the law you are going to see them. You were in charge of prosecuting people believed to have violated the law. Your experience based on your job would skew your views and encounters.

reply to post by Evanzsayz


Well then I'll put this to you then - If the sh*t really does hit the fan, it will be too late for the citizens to form a Militia, and to effect any change.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
reply to post by 27jd

 

So who stopped the Columbine massacre and the Virginia tech massacre?

The police? An armed civilian? An armed security guard? An armed passer by? An armed student?

No... They killed themselves.

Those schools are posted with "Gun Free Zone" signs. The people there were defensless untill the shooters killed themselves. Yet at Appalachian state two students went to their cars, grabbed weapons, and stopped the attack.

If anything we learn that posting a sign will not deter a criminal that wants to cause harm.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You make very good points as always. But what we have failed to realize or even PUSH, as we should do, is that a gun is property, you have the right to own a microwave oven, a lawn mower, a baseball bat and so many other things, to regulate or restrict, as registration DOES, one thing, that gives the government the "right" to regulate and restrict ALL things. 42 USC defines property rights, ALL PROPERTY.

I have the natural born right to own property, even if it has the ability to kill or injure, UNTIL, and NOT until, I actually hurt someone or kill someone can the government DO ANYTHING to restrict my ownership of property. The old, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, is total and utter BS!! We have been duped into believing that crap through the public fool system.

I have the right to own a fully automatic weapon, the government can not say squat to that. Can they come and take it from me, sure, after I have unloaded it upon them for their infractions of MY property and natural born rights.

When will people just come to understand that MAN existed LONG BEFORE any government, WE created it, and not to enslave us or define what we may own or not own outright.

There is your second amendment speech!