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

Being an American , I'm glad we have our rights even though politicians in Washington, NATO and other people want to strip us of our rights to suit there own selfish need.

Guns will always be in the wrong hands no matter what, you can't stop that. Criminals will do what ever they have too, to obtain weapons to commit their crimes.

But on the other hand you have average law abiding citizens that own guns and know how to use them for many reasons from protection of home and family to protecting livestock from predators to hunting and sport shooting.

Sure you get the novice who's a idiot and shouldn't have a weapon of any sort because they aren't capable of the responsibility of owning and handling of a fire arm or any type of bow.

I myself enjoy shooting and improving my skill with various firearms and Bows, I'm just getting into hunting for food not sport, i have targets on my property for sport shooting.

I also enjoy going to gun shows and meeting like minded people, I've run across a few crackpots but there's a nut for just about anything. Look how Many people are attacked or killed with kitchen knives, i hear it all the time, should we outlaw or regulate kitchen utensils also. a car is also a weapon maybe all transportation should be outlawed also. do you see where this is leading ?

The only government (city, state or federal) regulation there should be are training courses for each type of firearm. so you have a full understanding of the weapon from shooting to dismantling and preforming maintenance on it and if you can't pass the training you shouldn't be allowed to own one for your own safety as others..

As far as overthrowing our government there's a time and a place for that, and its not just yet. That's why many politicians want to take our right to own away so there jobs and criminal intent the power / control that they are trying to hold on too won't be lost. They fear its coming and are feeling unsafe, so they try to occupy our minds with everything from wars to dept to keeps from rising up.

As our fore fathers have stated it is our right to rise up and take our country back from the tyrants and that's a reason most American cherish the Second Amendment along with all our rights, its for our own preservation and not the governments. Governments come and go. Maybe the next time around we will learn from our mistakes, we sure let these criminals run a muck and pull the wool over our eyes, people are starting to wake up one by one.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Slay, where can I get some of those tiny cigarettes you always are smokin?

All joking aside you are totally right.

Americans against gun laws is interesting, foreigners against American gun laws should be disregarded as they are ineligible to hold this conversation.

Originally posted by emaildogs
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Slay, where can I get some of those tiny cigarettes you always are smokin?

All joking aside you are totally right.

Americans against gun laws is interesting, foreigners against American gun laws should be disregarded as they are ineligible to hold this conversation.

Damn, I'm sorry, I forgot the planet isn't round in America, it's just... America.

Originally posted by Freeborn
We don't need or want easier access to guns or relaxing of the current laws.

Well, I disagree. But that aside, what is our hedge against governmental tyranny? I know the Americans haven't exactly been using their guns to keep government in order, but they always have that option and will probably be exercising it before long. What do we do? Vote?

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.

The questions i would like answered are:

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

Can you fire at someone for illegally entering a property?

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

p00hbear

Gun Laws in America are very broad and vary State to State, for example in Texas just about everyone carries concealed gun in California guns are legal but extremely regulated no large capacity magazines, certain ammo is banned along with certain guns and cannot own any gun chambered for the .50 cal BMG. Gun laws are extremely hard to follow they change all the time state to state, city by city whats legal one day can be illegal the next day.

In my state Ohio it is legal to shoot someone breaking into your home "only" if that person has intent to do bodily harm to you or anyone "IN" your household, it the intruder tries to flee while in your house and then you shoot him then that is considered Murder by the State of Ohio. If sombody is trying to break into your car parked in your driveway you cannot run out and shoot them, thats considered Murder by the State of Ohio.

On gun and ammo storage i think most states require you to store a firearm in a safe or have some locking device on the gun in a household that children are present.

reply to post by Cythraul


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

Over the last two weekends four people have been glassed in seperate incidents in the town where I live.
One person nearly died through lack of blood and was only saved due to the very close proximity of an ambulance.
One person has lost an eye and another an ear.
I don't know much about the fourth incident.

Allegedly they were all as a result of spontaneous reactions to perceived insults.
If the attackers had guns then there is a very good chance that at least two or three of these victims would be dead.

Parts of the UK are very violent.

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

Comparing UK and the US on this is like comparing apples to pears.

Originally posted by ispyed
Sacred? Your sounding religious. The right to bear arms was surely for a time when you had no police force. It was a different world to the world we live in today when the ammendment was created. Abolishing or licensing gun ownership would be very difficult because of the pseudo religious attachment someamericans have for them. If not so many people died in the USA by the gun (20,000+ per anum) it wouldn't be such a big deal keeping guns.

So please get in the 21st century.

Labeling something 'religious' to draw an emotional/political resentment isn't going to work on anyone comfortable in their own skin. But if the pseudo religious attachment some Americans have for guns is a religion, consider me the pope, because gun ownership is an economical question, not a political question. So, while you may attack guns on political progress grounds, you're also promoting economical regression at the same time-- so, please, you, get with the 21st century. The time for controlling other people is history.

reply to post by emaildogs

Americans against gun laws is interesting, foreigners against American gun laws should be disregarded as they are ineligible to hold this conversation.

It is an open forum and anyone can contribute.

And let's face it, Americans aren't exactly renowned for not commenting or getting involved in issues that don't concern them; their obsession with The British Royal Family springs to mind.

reply to post by ispyed



"Sacred? Your sounding religious. The right to bear arms was surely for a time when you had no police force. It was a different world to the world we live in today when the ammendment was created. Abolishing or licensing gun ownership would be very difficult because of the pseudo religious attachment someamericans have for them. If not so many people died in the USA by the gun (20,000+ per anum) it wouldn't be such a big deal keeping guns."

"So please get in the 21st century."

Okay, I dont post very often at all but I had to reply to this one.

Probably 90 percent of the 20,000+ gun related crimes "per anum" are perpetrated against unarmed people(who if armed, may have stood a chance of defending themselves) by criminals who generally obtain guns through illegal means anyway. Therefore, as long as there are guns in existence criminals and people who intend to use them violently will always get their hands on them. Because of that gun laws will only serve to disarm law abiding citizens. Who, most of which (even in the face of an unjust law) would STILL not buy illegal firearms. Here in Illinois I have been denied a foid card more than once for no reason. I have never been arrested. I have no record whatsoever. I have never been in a psych ward or anyting like that so you tell me why I can't buy a gun legally when I know right now there is some violent criminal somewhere easily buying one off the back of some van or in some dark alley. My grandfather was a locally renowned marksman and gunsmith who as a tool and die maker made some of his own guns(which were fully registered). He was an avid hunter and could put several rounds almost a mile down range with less than a 3 inch spread. He even recieved a handwritten letter from Charleton Heston and a free lifetime membership in the nra because of shooting achievements. He taught me quite well and competitive shooting is a tradition that I would like to pursue. Thats the only reason I wanted a gun. But the state for no reason at all decided to tell me that my second amendment rights don't mean #. This is a perfect example of what I said above.

"Law abiding citizen"

...really? Just because someone doesn't have a criminal record means that such a person is 'sane' enough to own a handgun? Now that's a scary thought indeed.

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. The real problem is greed and need. If America is so great then why isn't everyone enjoying the wealth? Why is only a small percentage of Americans able to live a life of luxury and why is such a very large percentage of them living in poverty and cardboard houses? 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 see a problem starting to emerge and one that is very different from the one brought up in the original post. If everyone had everything they needed then you'd see a huge decrease in gun related crime but ironically that's not what most Americans want, what they want is more privatization and less social programs.

Healthcare is a perfect example of such a thing. The people up in Canada who cannot afford medication get it for free. Can you imagine other people paying for the medication of those who can't afford it? 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. See, up here, most of us think about fixing the root of the problem rather than just root out these "crazy people".

Maybe if he did have a real gun his own brains would have been splattered all over the walls, as well as those of his entire family. That would have been my first thought, "He's going to want to kill the witnesses!". Way to go, John Wayne, for making a bad situation worse by fighting fire with fire.

I agree with you. When the cops are 50 minutes away, I welcome someone by my side defending me with a concealed weapon against a mass murdering fanatic.

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)

Well reading the opinions of the men who defended and talked about this isues at the time....late 1700s...its more of a defence measure and not so much at all some idea about taking up arms and forcing an overthrow. It all there very clear in the Federalist Papers for one.

The well regulated militia is a trained "state" army its numbers and traing to be determined by state legislators...the peoples right to keep is a seperate extention but boils down to the same application if the need would arise to defend self from an organized despotic marshal action.

These state organized militias were considered the first line of state defence against a run away federal power in the form of a federal army lead by a despot. None the less it was also seen as a deterrent to despots that the average citizen be also armed to form militias ad hoc.

At any rate these are for mesures of defence. We had a debate about standing federal armies at the time or professional armies. One of the compromises the federalists made in exchange for standing federal armies, that many were in fear of, was that states and citizens could maitain arms in and of themselves. Not that the federlists had a problem with state and citizens being armed really but some states and many citizens had a problem with a standing federal army.

Some of the more libitarian dreamers wanted a citizens militia only to defend the young republic. However Hamilton argue that this was foolish and that a citizens militia couldnt defend and we needed a standing professional federal army. He agrued that the US would have lost the war with Britain if the militia had been the only defence. But all conceded that the liberties and rights of the people to "keep and bear arms" was fundemental for the maintenance of the republic. Considering that these rights were the main issues here they were at the foundation of the argument and not some sort of addendum. The only thing really debated was what measure of federal power in regards to standing armies would be had. The peoples rights were established first as they are fundemental.

In your country the rights and power of the state may be fundemental and any rights the citizens have look more like allowances. But here the rights of the citizen aginst overbearing authority were establish first. Here the state must operate around the rights of the citizen. As state and federal power grows more and more out of control they are a constant challange to our rights here and so we have constant turmoil. Part of that turmoil has been the recent sabre rattling of the people trying to remind certain in our government and modern society that we still have rights...and they are not being respected. And the U.N......we are rattling at them as well.

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

Originally posted by ispyed
Sacred? Your sounding religious. The right to bear arms was surely for a time when you had no police force. It was a different world to the world we live in today when the ammendment was created. Abolishing or licensing gun ownership would be very difficult because of the pseudo religious attachment someamericans have for them. If not so many people died in the USA by the gun (20,000+ per anum) it wouldn't be such a big deal keeping guns.

So please get in the 21st century.

Labeling something 'religious' to draw an emotional/political resentment isn't going to work on anyone comfortable in their own skin. But if the pseudo religious attachment some Americans have for guns is a religion, consider me the pope, because gun ownership is an economical question, not a political question. So, while you may attack guns on political progress grounds.....

Yes. We do now and certainly back then see a lack of this right not as progressive step forward into a brave new world but as a step back into the dark pages of the history of the repression of citizens. Its is fundemental to tyrantanical rule to divest the citizens of rights and thus eventualy the right to defend from the force of tyrants.

100 million armed citizens is quite a large army when thy take to the field. Think of it in those turms and you will see what tyrants are worried about.

Some suppose that so many armed citizens are a risk to the tranquility of the republic and could be swayed by evil forces amoung them to usher into power some form of government that would risk the republic and the union. But this is pure drivel. If this were so easy it would have been done long ago. In the case of our civil war it was states that formed a seperate confederacy and formed standing armies. To arouse the people in mass, without organization or concern for daily needs, to take up arms in the streets and towns of this whole nation would not be the work of some subversive bent in the people, or the machinations of some missleading messianic figure working amoung them......but it would be the responce to overbearing govermental power lead by despots who gained power by subterfuge and now openly fix to the people the burdens of their oppressive schemes.

reply to post by Cocasinpry


I never said that anyone without a criminal record was a law abiding citizen. On the same note not everyone who has a record for something like stealing or underage drinking is necessarily a violent criminal either. I think weather or not someone has a felony is what determines there eligibility for gun ownership. and sure there are plenty of people with felonies who could own a gun and never commit a violent crime. The opposite is also true. They are probably plently of people out there who legally own guns and have no criminal history who are total nutcases. Whats your point? You still cant punish everyone because of a select few. I mean lets say some guy who has no documented history of vilence and no criminal record but just hapens to be a psycho goes out and legally buys a gun. which is not likely because as a psycho he more than likely would have been discovered as such beforehand. but for the sake of argument lest say he did, then he went out and killed a few. now this sorta thing is tragic. but maybe if one of his victims were armed he would have been caught or killed sooner. and lets not forget there are more than one way to kill someone. maybe our pscho would have succeded even without a gun. either way yes it is tragic. but when you defend the priciples of the constitution you can not just pick and choose which part you defend. even if it means this sort of thing happens. You cant revoke the liberties of all americans because some americans choose to use them in bad way. all you can do is have faith that the justice system will work when they do. That being said I doo strongly agree with you about the greed part. That has a lot to do with it. After all the love of money is the root of all evil.

reply to post by zookey


It does happen, and to the common good: en.wikipedia.org...(1946)

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?

reply to post by SLAYER69


You know it's funny, the 2nd amendment was actually to support militias, not individuals. But nobody really disagreed to extending it to individuals. And yea, it's never shown to been bad. We're the most gun filled trigger happy country on he planet, and we're still free even with a half dead, dysfunctional retarded government. I'd call that proof positive that it's a good amendment, as other nations would be stuck in civil war already.

Of course we have the right to bare arms. Especially in this heat wave!
Who would even argue the point.
Love, from the sunny Virginia shore.

Originally posted by zookey

So why don't you use your rights to fix the government?

Just askin because every day on this forum I hear Americans huff puff hot air and smoke blowing declaring their rights, but I have yet to see them exercised.

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

Originally posted by Cythraul

Originally posted by Freeborn
We don't need or want easier access to guns or relaxing of the current laws.

Well, I disagree. But that aside, what is our hedge against governmental tyranny? I know the Americans haven't exactly been using their guns to keep government in order, but they always have that option and will probably be exercising it before long. What do we do? Vote?

You believe exercising rights could fix the government? The only thing that can fix the government at this point is [color=#FF0000]REVOLUTION. Every day American citizens exercise their rights.

[color=#FF0000]Beware of Democrats and Republicans!! They are all PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS. Millionaires and lawyers looking out for themselves and their kin while screwing the average American. Americans can never be free until they rid themselves of CRIMINAL GANGSTERS who have to band together in bands called parties which are no better than MS13, The Latin Kings, or any other number of illegal criminal enterprises that prey on the weak and unwary.

Americans need to elect CITIZEN STATESMEN who are not beholding to criminal gangsters who give them backing and financing.
[color=#FFFFFF]
CITIZEN STATESMEN who are not PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS and who love America more than they love power and money.

CITIZEN STATESMEN who will represent us instead of Lobbyists for corporations who ply them with under the table cash and benefits.

CITIZEN STATESMEN who will represent us instead of RULING OVER US.

[color=#3333FF]Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. It is a dirty, soiled currency backed by graft and greed that will no longer purchase honest representation for the American voter and taxpayer.

The true patriot is not the man who defends a corrupt government. The true patriot is the man who defends the Constitution from that corrupt government.

[color=#FF9900]I keep saying that and maybe one day enough people will actually listen and we can take our country back. It is sheer INSANITY to keep voting for Democrats and Republicans and expect anything different than what we have been getting for at least the last fifty years. It is like continuously hitting yourself over the head with a skillet and expecting that the next time it will not hurt.

reply to post by SLAYER69


It is the single most telling comment on the state of the insanity gripping the dying United States when people who know nothing quote the Constitution and claim it is abundantly clear. I was a Prosecutor and Defense attorney for 25 years and litigated my fair share of constitutional issues in the ED of VA and up to SCOTUS.

This Amendment (as with most) is far from clear. That doesn't mean it is utterly vague, but SCOTUS hasn't been able to agree on this Amendment for over 200 years. And the history of this Amendment (it's legislative history) is such that it is MUCH more about the U.S. having the ability to call up an already armed National Guard than it does to carry a concealed weapon at a Church or College or at a bar. If it was so damned clear, then all those SCOTUS decisions would be 9-0. They weren't. Most were 53 or 6-3/

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 had about 20 cases where people were accidentally hurt or killed (usually kids) because some gun owner was either drunk or didn't keep the guns locked up, etc ...

But when you talk about something as utterly complex as the Constitution and act like it is "clear", you fly in the face of reason, intelligence and over 200 years of case law in the United States. It is this attitude that is KILLING the United States. It's as though you are telling us how clear and easy it is to perform brain surgery.

Grow up and snag a little wisdom.