Your right to 'Bear Arms'

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


That doesn't make sense though. Not all rich people have great morals. Some wealthy people support terrorist groups for example. personally though I don't trust anyone with nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by browsey

*Facepalm*
Please do not use wikipedia as your source for collecting statistics, and also check the year, and if possible when giving facts, statistics etc (As i have not done) please give us the link as for all we know that is mere speculation.

Watch Bowling for Columbine if you have not seen it, if for nothing more than the homicide gun crime rates in the US, being dramatically more.

*Facepalm II*

Are you seriously taking issue with Wikipedia as a source, then immediately citing an ancient Michael Moore film as a more recent, more valid source?

Seriously?

America already has a "well-regulated militia". It's called the Army National Guard.

Everyone else is just a civilian with a gun.

Unless of course, say, Chinese paratroopers land on the outskirts of their town, in which case average citizens all turn into John Rambo.

"Defence against a tyrannical government."

Chop chop.

the key word is "infringed". whether in a militia or not, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. limiting the ownership of guns to militias only is infringing on the right of the people to bear arms.

the founding fathers saw the value of having american men and women who know how to use guns, and so they wrote the second amendment.

IMO There should be reasonable gun laws. Should someone have to jump through a few hoops to buy say... A full auto M60 machine gun and 5,000 rounds of 7.62? I think that is reasonable. You can scoff at the old line "well that could include Nuclear weapons also" as ridiculous, which it is, but you cannot then say it should be perfectly ok for anyone to get a full auto M60 machine gun down at Wal-mart next to the little .22 rifle used to shoot squirrels. They are very different weapons, with very different mechanics, and very different firepower. Also, somebody said something about the cost of nuclear weapons. Yeah, they would be extremely expensive. But grenades aren't. Mines aren't either. Should our "right to bear arms" include grenades and mines? RPG's are technically just a grenade that go further and faster than throwing it. Should that be aloud? There are many very dangerous weapons out there that should be regulated on who can buy them. And by the way, everyone always holds the 'founding fathers' to such high esteem as geniuses.Well when the constitution was written they were shooting friggin muskets. One shot, black powder, inaccurate, low range weapons. If they were alive today and witnessed someone shooting an Uzi, or say a .50 caliber sniper rifle taking someones limb off from 1,000 yards, I'm sure they would be in favor of regulating how one might acquire such a gun.


Oh and before I get a bunch of bull# about being a "liberal socialist marxist communist dictator", I own 7 guns at the moment, why not come to my house and tell me in person.


Let me clarify something. Some people say that we should be able to own the same guns as our government(I'm guessing they mean the military and police personnel) Which I don't DISagree with, BUT in order for someone to be able to own the same weapons as 'the government' one should be required to obtain the same training in particular weapons of choice that the military gets. And I don't mean "here's a gun, shoot that target.... Good enough go kill some Nazi's" I mean actual training. How to clean the weapon, Load properly, shoot properly, unload, safety measures. Then I'd be fine with everyone owning them! Lol

Click here for more information.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by unckleovabava
Oh I know you need a license to own full auto's I was just clarifying my point that I agree with having to "jump through a few hoops" to get one. It shouldn't be easy for anyone to a reasonable degree. Just like the 5 day waiting period for handguns, people flipped out about that. But It may have forced someone (who might have wanted to go shoot someone in the face they were so pissed off) to cool off for a couple days. That's just my opinion though.

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by browsey

 

It's not vague. "Arms" back when the Constitution was written meant guns. Thus every American has the right to own guns. It only seems vague when one doesn't think to look at what a word meant in a document when it was written.

Wrong... It meant any type of arms... firearms, swords. It wasn't meant to depict a type of weapon, it was meant to ensure that the people could have the same type of armaments as the government so that the government could not take away our other inalienable rights.

there are absolutely NO laws prohibiting the ownership of types of arms. There are laws that regulate certain materials and tax certain types of firearms, but you can own any arm...

Jaden

I seriously think that everyone who doesn't believe in the right to bear arms should check out this. The Nutnfancy project on YouTube is probably one of if not the greatest advocate for responsible firearm ownership that I have come across. He also rates and reviews other gear besides firearms and knives that he actually field tests.

reply to post by browsey


RIght to bear arms: anything that you can use to beat an occupying country with!

reply to post by browsey


The right to bear arms means I have equal capability of defense as my government. That's it plain and simple. Otherwise the right to bear arms doesn't mean a thing.

reply to post by Darkblade71


Technically Cannons are not illegal, however, under the National Firearms Act of 1968 Federal statute requires that a device like this be rendered unserviceable, registered with the ATF by a the legal owner and a annual tax be paid in the amount of $200 dollars.

But,
Here is the catch.

If a private citizen is in possession of a NFA firearm that has never been registered, it is Unlawful for the citizen to register it, and the penalty for possession is 250.000 dollars and/or 10 years in Federal Prison.

Here is the exception.

Muzzleloading cannons not capable of firing fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 and replicas thereof are antiques and not subject to the provisions of either the GCA or the NFA.

So, it is best not to put on the World Wide Web information as “my uncle has a cannon…that fires.

The ATF doesn’t take kindly to such weapons being in the hands of the citizenry.

Originally posted by browseyNow my question is, even if apparent "Gun Nuts" realise there is a line, where should it be drawn? I mean what arms should (If any) be allowed under the second amendment, as it is, extremely vague. The right to 'bear arms' is extremely shrouded,

The right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the words of the 2nd Amendment merely recognizing and securing it. Americans don't possess the right to arms because of a particular definition or interpretation of words . . . We have the right because there are NO words granting to government any power to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.

Originally posted by browsey it could include from a plank of wood as your arms, to guns, explosives, chemical warfare? Which out of any of these are accepted arms and where is the line drawn? and for how long?

The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers that the people have granted to government and everything not conferred is retained by them; we call them rights, exceptions of powers never granted.

For those interests that HAVE been conferred to the federal government (Art I, § 8 would be a good place to look) neither the people (or the states) have any claim to. This is Constitutional supremacy or federal preemption. The powers to "declare war" and "raise and support armies" and "provide and maintain a navy" have been given to Congress and with that goes the powers to control the weapons of large scale, national, open warfare.

This principle, as enforced against the property of private citizens, is evident in those original clauses of the Constitution (Art I, § 8, cl. 11 -- "grant letters of marque and reprisal") and directly applicable today to allow the federal government to regulate and prohibit the ownership by citizens of fighter jets, tanks, missiles, etc, and of course NBC WMD's.

Originally posted by browseyWill this mean that as any weaponry becomes available to the military, it will soon follow for citizens? Isnt that the point of the amendment to allow US citizens freedom of choice for 'defending' ones self?

The 2nd Amendment isn't so much a provision guaranteeing the citizenry tactical equivalency with the government. It is more a philosophical element because the 2nd is what guarantees the continence of the foundational principle that the people give consent to be governed.

If one believes in that principle then one must embrace what the 2nd really represents and what it really secures . . . The 2nd secures the means for the people to rescind their consent to be governed.

Madison laid out some ratios back in 1788 and they remain spot-on today.

He said the the largest standing army the US could possibly maintain is 1% of the total population.

Today we have 305 Million people and the active and reserve military number 2.9 million . . .

Back then Madison said the 30,000 strong "standing army" would be outnumbered ("opposed" was the word he used) by 500,000 citizens "with arms in their hands"; armed citizens then enjoyed a 17 to 1 advantage over the military. Today there are 75,000,000 gun owners that own 300,000,000 guns; today the "standing army" is outnumbered (opposed) by a factor of 25 to 1.

Originally posted by browseyAnd my final question, who decides what 'weapons' are available for citizens as i imagine not all are readily available

The Supreme Court has in the last few years revisited using the Amendment to decide upon the constitutionality of challenged law. The latest rulings enforcing the Amendment federally and against the states (14th Amendment due process clause) has pretty much taken any push for new laws off the radar. If anything standing law, especially in states like California and New Jersey, will be struck down. So now and for the foreseeable future, what's available will stay available. For citizens in some oppressive states, liberty will soon be restored.

Of course that doesn't stop those hostile to the 2nd from working on gun control "under the radar" . . .

Originally posted by SubmarinesEveryone seems to leave out the first part.A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,,

This part states the reason that we were given the right to bear arms. IMO, there has been far too much interpretation to the 2nd ammendment. Independent interpretation has taken a simple sentence and created a monster.

If you read the Amendment as "giving" us the right to bear arms it is you demonstrating gross and unwarranted interpretation and creating a monster.

Originally posted by SubmarinesI think if the Founding Fathers new that we would have small weapons that can cause mass destruction, this ammendment would have been written differently. On the other hand, maybe the Founding Fathers gave us way too much credit, and figured that we would be smart enough to read the entire ammendment as it was written.

Total fail on divining the framers intentions. If there is one thing they knew it was that they could not give the people something they never parted with.

reply to post by browsey


I was born with the only two guns I need... *smooches his biceps*

second line

Any of you who don't live in the USA, come on down here in the south with me a while and I will teach you the "right to bear arms". Heck....even you dum dums living here might need to come on down and learn a thing or two about gun rights. Guns are what our Vets and soldiers now used or use to keep our freedoms.....and have done a good job in....uh...how many wars now?.........yet...our on Gov. keeps trying to take them. Guys...the fact that every outdoor good ol' boy owns a gun is whats kept USA from being invaded. They can't keep power fighting as many fronts as we could create.
Mods....it's pertinent!

reply to post by browsey


These arguments are always interesting.
I'm currently reading "As if in an Enemy's Country" about the British occupation of Boston in 1768.
What's interesting is the fact that the British army was sent to the colonies because the British citizens did want a standing army in their land! What got the colonies up in arms was the fact that not only were they asked to put up with something that as Englsh citizens they would not endure they were taxed and told to pay for it.

That like me saying, I'm going to come over to your house, eat all your food, watch tv, drink your beer and your going to pay me for the privilege of doing so.

When the 2nd amdenent was wrote their was really only the "Brown Bess" flintlock rifle
All firearms were just the same technology. A long rifle was a long rifle.
They didn't think it was complicated. Every household had a flintlock rifle. Mostly to keep food on the table and self defense. The French-Indian wars were a long bloody affair that everyone remembered well at that time.
There was no police or anyone else to call if you needed help.
The colonists also didn't want a standing army, even their own, after the revolution. That's why the milita came about. Each household that could supplied an able bodied man with his own weapon. That way there was no standing army to support, feed or be used to take control of the government. Or be used to invade other countries.
( guess we forgot that part

I was born and raised in the U.S and have lived in England, Bulgaria, China and Germany. And visited a ton of other places. People forget how large America is. Until the past few generations unless you lived in the cities or a small town you really were on your own, the nearest police would be half hour away or more, if they could even get to you. If you had problem you usually had to deal with it on your own. Also for us rifles are usually just a tool to put extra food on the table. I still have my Grandfathers .22 that he used to feed the family during the depression.

When I lived in Bulgaria I had a bomb go off a block from my apartment. Just the mob sending a message to someone. Saw a lot of guns and fair amount of crime but you could usually avoid it.
China, I walked through the slums of Shanghai by myself and never had a problem.
Germany, was more worried about getting run over on the autobahn than anything else.
London was different. Everyone I knew had been a victim of assault, muggings, break ins, squatters, thieves etc. There was more low level crime than any where else I have been to. It didn't seem to be personal just crimes of opportunity. I really don't think guns would work in the U.K. Even if they did have them. I've seen they way the English drink, they start at 17:00 and are completely legless by 20:00. ( just kidding
Also firing off a gun in a flat would more than likely kill your neighbours than anyone else.
People, especially women, should be allowed to have Tasers and mace in the U.K. though.

Here in the U.S. I've never had a problem other than a few cases of road rage in Los Angeles.
But L.A is it's own little separate reality anyway.

Back to the op's question. If you want an antique cannon or old firearm no big deal.
Machine guns no big deal since it's such a hassle and expense to own one anyway.
Same for .50 cal rifles.
Stinger missiles, home made IEDs etc. Now we have a problem.
I can't think of single reason to own a live RPG or javelin missle.
Besides I've never seen anyone pick up girls with an RPG.

America does need to get it's concealed carry laws in order. The current laws are a mishmash from state to state. Your more likely to run afoul of an obscure state law and get thrown in jail than ever need a gun while traveling.

Gun ownership is a civil rights issue. Besides the 2nd amendment, the 13th and 14th amendments abolished slavery and gave them equal protections to anyone else.

After men were freed from slavery in 1865, they were known as freedmen, given land and they moved their families to that land. Some white men did not accept that these men were equal, and occasionally broke into their homes, dragged the father out into the night permanently and made the family fatherless, later obtaining their land. Some of these men were law enforcement types, and the need to bear arms to defend against law enforcement was repeated in text in those days. The attacks on freedmen really ticked off many people including congressmen, who quickly passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the 14th amendment in 1868, guaranteeing equal rights to freedmen. This was followed by the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, and the Civil rights acts of 1871 and 1875.

Thirteenth amendment: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. (adopted on December 6, 1865)

Fourteenth amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (adopted on July 9, 1868)

www.stephenhalbrook.com...

D. THE ANTI-KKK ACT

Although the Fourteenth Amendment became law in 1868, within three years the Congress was considering enforcement legislation to suppress the Ku Klux Klan. The famous report by Rep. Benjamin F. Butler (R., Mass.) on violence in the South assumed that the right to keep arms was necessary for protection against the militia but also against local law enforcement agencies. Noting (pg.73) instances of "armed confederates" terrorizing the negro, the report stated that "in many counties they have preceded their outrages upon him by disarming him, in violation of his right as a citizen to `keep and bear arms,' which the Constitution expressly says shall never be infringed.

The congressional power based on the Fourteenth Amendment to legislate to prevent states from depriving any U.S. citizen of life, liberty, or property justified the following provision of the committee's anti-KKK bill:

That whoever shall, without due process of law, by violence, intimidation, or threats, take away or deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property, shall be deemed guilty of a larceny thereof, and be punished as provided in this act for a felony

The rest of the paper above is a good read.

Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
en.wikisource.org...

Civil rights act of 1871
finduslaw.com...

Civil rights act of 1875
en.wikipedia.org...

I really, really wish we could make it a crime to undermine the constitution and our rights. Make it a felony to intentionally undermine the Amendments of the constitution, and there would be fewer attacks on the Amendments. Start throwing these politicians in jail.