The Second Amendment is not being properly used

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


No Wolf, we were not on the same page, thank you for clearing that up.

Yes you are correct, we would have our own versions of civilian tanks, Helicopters Drones, ect. We could pose some threat yes, but the result would be the same as when we as a country fight said Arab groups, despite them having these things, or obtaining them they are horribly out matched. and lose very badly.

I understand you are mentioning Arab's fighting back at their own government, but the level of technology makes a difference. This is one reason why they are defeated by us so easily.




posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321

As we are seeing, as government become more and more oppressive, bordering on sheer tyranny, they abuse power and take away the rights of people. In doing so they always come to get the people. It is in those instances that the people should stand their ground, and their brothers and neighbors should be standing with them. Defense. Resist. Make them not want to risk their lives to enact their oppression. Sadly, in that aspect we are outgunned, contrary to the 2nd Amendment.
edit on 13-8-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)


We really disagree on nothing, other than our views on how effective we might actually be if it came down to force. And even then, by this statement, we might be in agreement.
edit on 13-8-2012 by CalebRight14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
People who are saying "I wouldnt want crazy people carrying around nuclear weapons in my neighborhood" or whatever, think again, do you really think people will have the money to spend on a nuclear bomb and own one? lol. As long as we are allowed to own the same weapons the government has ill be fine, i'll buy some AR's and some drones and maybe a turret and im good
... wait, cant forget some frag grenades



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


Wolf, I have studied alot about the civil war that took place in El Salvador from 1980-1991 i believe.
Every one that knows about that war says that the government won the war, but in my opinion the rebels won. They didnt want to over throw the government, they just wanted to come to an agreement, and after 11 years of bloody war, the government finally gave in and they talked business with the rebels. and finally the war ended.
Sorry i went off topic, my main point is that when the rebels declared war, they only had little pistols and revolvers, there was a few assault rifles but they were BADLY out-gunned. they fought with guerilla war tactics.

watch this video, its really long so do me a favor and watch from 8:20 to atleast 11:00. youll see what i mean
and the females in the video, they joined the guerillas willingly.



They started off with little pistols and when they killed they stripped the enemy and took what they needed, after about 4 years russia and cuba started shipping the guerillas with weapons, this is the 2nd part of the whole video but the first part shows a guerrilla with a Russian dragonov sniper rifle sniping some enemys



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Sadly, i can sense a big war coming. But what i sense is a civil war
edit on 13-8-2012 by Rastafari because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Rastafari
 


Indeed. Human history and American history have shown that a less equipped force can win. The American founders gave us the 2nd Amendment, in conjunction with the notion that we should not have a standing army, so that the issue of weapon superiority should not be an issue.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Changing one big thing would make alot of things different.

The idea behind the 2nd amendment would have made the world armyless by now. Without a standing army, taxes and goverment coersion are close to zero, and wars would never happen, outside of crusades or jihads.
(Is there a far Eastern event like a crusade or jihad?)

More money in everyone's pockets, zero war destruction and death, and an economy based on trade or culture rather than directed control.

In a war situation, rather than having weapons ready to go, known technologies would be weaponized. Cheaper that way. No obsolite gear to throw away.

Anyway,the world everywhere would be richer and smarter if the Constitution, or better yet, the ideas behind the American Revolution had been adhered to.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
This is how much of a Pro I was in BF2, I played as good as this:





You must use skills like almost as good as mine to defend your neighborhoods


Pssst....hey, slick.....got something to tell you.

War is not like a freakin' video game. Sorry to burst your lame bubble.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321
Why did they include that amendment to the constitution? Why was that right specified one its own?

The answer is simple; it is so the people have the tools to resist and overthrow a tyrannical and oppressive government.

It was to allow the people protection from the government. While the constitution addresses changes in government, armed revolt is the last option. Participation in the process by voting and holding elected officals accountible is the first line of defense.

Its not enough to just bitch about the government not doing what they are suppose to. If you want them to obey the constitution then citizens must hold them accountible, using the correct process. Skipping that step / process violates the constitution just as badly as the government ignoring it.


Originally posted by Wolf321
To restrict and limit that right in a manner that prohibits its use is not in accordance with its purpose.

Respectfully incorrect. The first amendment guarantees the the government cannot take away a person ability to free speech. However its not absolute and must change with the times. While I respect a persons right to speak their mind, I dont respect their right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, creating a panic when one does not exist.

It protects religious freedom however it does not allow for human sacrifice.
It protects travel but not the method..
It prohibits unlawful search and seizures but allows it to be waived by the individual.
The constitution prohibits women from voting but was changed by the people.
The constitution considers certain peoples 3/5th of a person but was changed by the people.
The 5th amendment protects against double jeopardy however the FEderal Government and state governments are separate sovereigns and as such a person can be charged at both levels.
It protects freedom of press however it does not protect illegal actions by the press when it comes to printing classified information.

The 2nd amendment does not cover specifics so to argue the 2nd amendment is being violated begs the question - how?

No where in the 2nd does it say anything about assault rifles, surface to air missiles, apache helicopters, tanks etc etc etc. The right of the individual to bare arms was established in 2008 and again in 2010 via the chicago and Washington DC rulings. Again though it did not define what arms are.

Article IV section 1 is full faith and credit. It states laws / actions taken in one state are valid / legal in another. What it does not do is make it blanket. Congress can define what will be covered and what will not.



Originally posted by Wolf321
To allow restrictions or prohibitions that give the government the advantage, is to essentially not even have a 2nd Amendment.
edit on 13-8-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)

People seem to be ignoring the section of the constitution that discusses the military, the fact they operate under differing guidelines / laws than civilians etc etc.

Your rights end the moment they interfere with the rights of others.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
At the time when the Constitution was written and adopted, the entire Bill of Rights was assumed to be implicit in the Constitution itself by the Constitutions supporters.

The Bill of Rights was included by pressure from opponents to the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists. Without the Bill of Rights, the Constitution would not have been adopted.

Close to half of the founding fathers saw that the Constitution was going to be abused and power amassed in the central, distant, and increasingly alien government. The Bill of Rights should be interpreted with this opposition to centralized power in mind.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
It was to allow the people protection from the government. While the constitution addresses changes in government, armed revolt is the last option. Participation in the process by voting and holding elected officals accountible is the first line of defense.

Its not enough to just bitch about the government not doing what they are suppose to. If you want them to obey the constitution then citizens must hold them accountible, using the correct process. Skipping that step / process violates the constitution just as badly as the government ignoring it.


Well we seem to be in agreement here.



Respectfully incorrect. The first amendment guarantees the the government cannot take away a person ability to free speech. However its not absolute and must change with the times. While I respect a persons right to speak their mind, I dont respect their right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, creating a panic when one does not exist.

It protects religious freedom however it does not allow for human sacrifice.
It protects travel but not the method..
It prohibits unlawful search and seizures but allows it to be waived by the individual.
The constitution prohibits women from voting but was changed by the people.
The constitution considers certain peoples 3/5th of a person but was changed by the people.
The 5th amendment protects against double jeopardy however the FEderal Government and state governments are separate sovereigns and as such a person can be charged at both levels.
It protects freedom of press however it does not protect illegal actions by the press when it comes to printing classified information.


With the exception of the 5th amendment issue, everything you cited are issues where rights or freedoms of others are violated, which is NOT permitted under the constitutionally protected rights. The issues that were not recognized or not in accordance with individual freedom and liberty at the adoption of the Constitution, women voting and the 3/5ths person issue, were corrected to ensure and enhance freedom.

For the people to be permitted to buy and posses the same arms as the military, to include automatic weapons, explosives, tanks, jets, armor etc, VIOLATES NO PERSONS LIBERTY. If no persons liberty is being violated, no restriction is needed or should be allowed. The only reason to restrict and regulate such arms in a manner that empowers the government and limits the people, serves contrary to the 2nd amendment.

The only way the constitution should change with the times, is to further secure the blessings of liberty, to enhance the freedoms of man, or to restructure or redefine the responsibilities and restrictions of government. To do other than that is counter to the principles of our founding.


The 2nd amendment does not cover specifics so to argue the 2nd amendment is being violated begs the question - how?

We are already in agreement that the 2nd amendment exist so the people can protect themselves from the government. If the government is allowed superior arms, and people restricted, then logically they cannot protect themselves from the government.


People seem to be ignoring the section of the constitution that discusses the military, the fact they operate under differing guidelines / laws than civilians etc etc.


This has no bearing on the people being allowed the same arms as the military under the 2A.


Your rights end the moment they interfere with the rights of others.


Exactly. Once again we are in agreement. And I must reiterate, that for the people to be allowed to purchase and posses the same arms as the military does not interfere with the rights of others.

Now, some would claim that the misuse of such technology can violate another’s rights, but that applies to other rights as you have expressed. That is not the issue many in this discussion have argument with. Simply that the 2A, in regulating and restricting arms of the people, is not in accordance with the principles and ideals of the founders or in the spirit of the constitution.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


I think you're a bit over the line of reason here.

George Washington a Terrorist? Odd use of that word? Since when is forming a uniformed army to free a country from dictatorial rule by a Monarchy Terrorism? Terrorism involves the indiscriminate killing of innocents and destruction of property to cause "Terror". Not even remotely the same. I don't like seeing that word misused in that way. Washington was not lobbing cannonballs into marketplaces, churches and public events slaughtering non-combatants. Equating him with Terrorism is very disingenuous.

I'm a gun owner and do believe in our right to own weapons for self defense. Most people do, even most Democrats do which is why neither Party ever comes out against gun ownership. Not even Obama.

I am not radical enough however to want anyone who wishes to have things like RPG's, large caliber fully automatic weapons or things like missiles, tanks, heavy armament and bombs. That is a whole other topic. Even the NRA would take exception with an idea like that; they are not that irrational.

You could however get yourself a Drone if you wish. They will be available for uses other than military. The regulations will be written soon I imagine. Hopefully there will be licensing involved and someone who knows what they are doing will be at the controls. Your wallet will guide how large a Drone you can have I imagine and the larger ones will likely follow rules similar to light civilian aircraft.

That you won't be able to arm your Drone is a good thing in my mind. Yes to gun ownership and even owning things like knives and small arms for protection; hell no to everyone being able to get M1A1 Tank



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   
In the news today was stories about the Syrian government running air strikes against villages. This is a prime example of why we in the US were given the 2nd Amendment.

The founders likely never envisioned aircraft or other modern military weapons. That issue is irrelevant. They wanted to ensure the people had the ability to stand against an oppressive and abusive government. The Syrian example shows that the government has the upper hand and the people are fighting an uphill battle.

While the government would have more experience with their tools, if the people had the same resources, the government would be less likely to have abused their power to begin with. At the very least the people would stand a fighting chance.
edit on 15-8-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321
Well we seem to be in agreement here.

okedoke...



Originally posted by Wolf321
With the exception of the 5th amendment issue, everything you cited are issues where rights or freedoms of others are violated, which is NOT permitted under the constitutionally protected rights. The issues that were not recognized or not in accordance with individual freedom and liberty at the adoption of the Constitution, women voting and the 3/5ths person issue, were corrected to ensure and enhance freedom.

Which supports my point that what was considered important and non important at the time of its inception have been changed / adapted to take into account changes in society. It acknowledges from the start that its a living document that is meant to change with the times and to take into account the unforseen. Our founders gave us a framework that we can change / build without destroying the foundation.



Originally posted by Wolf321
For the people to be permitted to buy and posses the same arms as the military, to include automatic weapons, explosives, tanks, jets, armor etc, VIOLATES NO PERSONS LIBERTY. If no persons liberty is being violated, no restriction is needed or should be allowed. The only reason to restrict and regulate such arms in a manner that empowers the government and limits the people, serves contrary to the 2nd amendment.

Again respectfully incorrect. Please show me where the 2nd amendment specifically states you have a right to own a F-16 Falcon or F-22 Raptor or deplested Uraniaum ammunition.

The part of the constitution you are ignoring is the part that states whatever is not spelled out to the federal government is reserved to the states. In case you have not noticed a peson ability to purchase differeing weapons depends on the state they live in.

You dont get it both ways. You cant argue the government is violating the constitution while at the same time you are doing the very same to support your argument.

If we use your logic then speed limits are unconstitutional because it impacts travel by restricting speed.

The 2nd amendment was applied to the individual in 2008 and 2010. No where in it does it state what an individual can and cannot own. Just like travel within and across state lines. Its constitutionally protected however the method of travel is not.



Originally posted by Wolf321
The only way the constitution should change with the times, is to further secure the blessings of liberty, to enhance the freedoms of man, or to restructure or redefine the responsibilities and restrictions of government. To do other than that is counter to the principles of our founding.

The Constitution is a road map / guide, not a suicide pact.



Originally posted by Wolf321
We are already in agreement that the 2nd amendment exist so the people can protect themselves from the government. If the government is allowed superior arms, and people restricted, then logically they cannot protect themselves from the government.

There is nothing in the constitution that prevents the military from being used in civilian law enforcement functions. Posse Commitatus, which Congress enavted at the end of the civil war, does restrict it. Is that law valid?

The concept the founders had was to NOT have a standing military. In place of that we have law enforcement, expanded from those times to what we have now. As an example Sheriffs Offices are not required to operate a road patrol (in general some states will vary). Before you set what should or should not happen / access to resources the government has etc people must be aware of the fundamental basics first.

State guard units are the force to protect the state from the Federal government. While I understand your argument I dont agree with it. It skips over the requirement that the people are responsible for holding the government accountible and does this by being involved and voting / participating in the process. PEople want to skip over that step anytime the gtovernment does something they dont agree with.



Originally posted by Wolf321
This has no bearing on the people being allowed the same arms as the military under the 2A.

It has massive bearing on this issue. Again the 2nd amendment makes no guarantee that you can own what the nmilitary has. It makes no guarantees that the population should be equal to or better armed than the military. That is a myth and does not exist.

The military is NOT covered under the 2nd amendment. While members of the military, by virture of being citizens, are covered by it, the military is not. A standing military is separate, and we know this by the fact its specifically spelled out in terms of who can declare war, who is head of the military, who controls the purse strings for the military etc etc etc. We know this by the fact there are differing laws that cover military than the ones that cover individuals.

The constitution started out as only applying to the FEderal government, not the states nor the citizens of the states. That was eventually applied by Supreme Court rulings. There is nothing, no gurantees etc, that state citizens canhave access to military weaponry.


Originally posted by Wolf321
Exactly. Once again we are in agreement. And I must reiterate, that for the people to be allowed to purchase and posses the same arms as the military does not interfere with the rights of others.

Again there is nothing that states the people can have access to the exact same weapons the military uses. It gurantees the right for an individual to bear arms, nothing more. The military has its own references in the Constitution, as I poiinted out above. There are reasons for that, there are reasons for Posse Commitatus and there are reasons registration and what can and cannot be bought / owned / sold is up to the states.



Originally posted by Wolf321
Now, some would claim that the misuse of such technology can violate another’s rights, but that applies to other rights as you have expressed. That is not the issue many in this discussion have argument with. Simply that the 2A, in regulating and restricting arms of the people, is not in accordance with the principles and ideals of the founders or in the spirit of the constitution.

The Constitution states you have a right to bear arms. No where does it state you get the same access to weapons the police or military does. Again the 2nd, including the recent 2008 / 2010 rulings, states the right to bear arms under the 2nd applies to the individual.

No where does it state what is covered under the amendment. Anything not spelled out is reserved to the states, and as we see when we look at state laws they all have their laws / restrictions / requirements on what can and cannot be sold / owned.

The 2nd gurantees the right to own and bear arms. It does NOT specifiy what arms are, are not, whats covered and whats not.

Thats the job of the states.
edit on 15-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Which supports my point that what was considered important and non important at the time of its inception have been changed / adapted to take into account changes in society. It acknowledges from the start that its a living document that is meant to change with the times and to take into account the unforseen. Our founders gave us a framework that we can change / build without destroying the foundation.


That didn't support your point at all. The founders knew that rights were absolute only so far as they didn't violate the rights of others. It would defy logic to say you have the right to violate others rights. You are right, they gave us a framework that we can change. The issues we are dealing with are not matters of frame work or enhancing liberty. As I made clear, if it goes beyond redefining the form or responsibility of government, or enhancing and ensuring liberty, it is not in accordance with the Constitution or the founder’s concept of a free nation.


Again respectfully incorrect. Please show me where the 2nd amendment specifically states you have a right to own a F-16 Falcon or F-22 Raptor or deplested Uraniaum ammunition.


The 2nd amendment doesn't specifically state a musket, a cannon or a knife either. It says "arms." That was understood quite clearly as the weapons of warfare. Do you think that the founders intended for the people to be less equipped to counter a tyrannical government?


The part of the constitution you are ignoring is the part that states whatever is not spelled out to the federal government is reserved to the states. In case you have not noticed a peson ability to purchase differeing weapons depends on the state they live in.


I am not missing the 10th amendment. The issue of arms is clearly spelled out in the federal Constitution. As such, that issue is not left to the states. I am aware there are differing regulations on arms from state to state. The lack of the federal government to rectify this error is simply a way for the federal level to circumvent the 2nd Amendment through inaction.


The Constitution is a road map / guide, not a suicide pact.


I don’t view anything in the Constitution as suicidal. However, I do view NOT following the constitution and ignoring the intent of the founders as such. Doing so ensures that the government gets carte blanche to erode or eliminate our rights, as we are seeing done more and more of now.


While I understand your argument I dont agree with it. It skips over the requirement that the people are responsible for holding the government accountible and does this by being involved and voting / participating in the process. PEople want to skip over that step anytime the gtovernment does something they dont agree with.


How does allowing the people to be equally as armed as a standing army skip over holding the government accountable through the election process? I have already stated that I am in agreement that issues with operation of the government should be handled via changes through elections.


It has massive bearing on this issue. Again the 2nd amendment makes no guarantee that you can own what the nmilitary has. It makes no guarantees that the population should be equal to or better armed than the military. That is a myth and does not exist.


Here is our fundamental difference. I think it is abundantly clear that the ability for the civilian population to be armed for the purpose of preventing or countering a tyrannical government is not to be infringed. In being included in the Bill of Rights, that is our guarantee.

If you can, please answer me this as simply as possible. Do you honestly think the founders, after fighting the revolution, and in writing the Constitution and Bill of Rights, wanted the government to militarily be better equipped than the people?


Again there is nothing that states the people can have access to the exact same weapons the military uses.


Nor does it say they should have inferior weapons.


It gurantees the right for an individual to bear arms, nothing more.


But why did they include this amendment? You have already agreed that “It was to allow the people protection from the government.” So how does restricting and limiting the people’s ability to equally arm allow them protection from the government? The very notion is illogical.

If any weapon = protection, then lets arm all cops and bodyguards with sling shots.

The reason the 2A doesn’t spell out the type of arms, is because entire reason for its existence as an amendment and right is to counter a military. “Arms” therein becomes ‘whatever weapons a military can use.’



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
No where does it state what is covered under the amendment. Anything not spelled out is reserved to the states, …


It doesn’t have to be spelled out because it is all inclusive.

Freedom of religion is included in the constitution, but it doesn’t specify which religion. It is all inclusive. We don’t let states start saying Islam is not a recognized as a religion in this state.


The 2nd gurantees the right to own and bear arms. It does NOT specifiy what arms are, are not, whats covered and whats not.


You keep getting hung-up on the lack of the word “arms” being defined in the document itself. Are you a lawyer or a congressman? Where is the common sense that Patrick Henry recognized?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321

Originally posted by Xcathdra
No where does it state what is covered under the amendment. Anything not spelled out is reserved to the states, …


It doesn’t have to be spelled out because it is all inclusive.

Freedom of religion is included in the constitution, but it doesn’t specify which religion. It is all inclusive. We don’t let states start saying Islam is not a recognized as a religion in this state.


The 2nd gurantees the right to own and bear arms. It does NOT specifiy what arms are, are not, whats covered and whats not.


You keep getting hung-up on the lack of the word “arms” being defined in the document itself. Are you a lawyer or a congressman? Where is the common sense that Patrick Henry recognized?


Guys,

While you are arguing finer points of definitions within an ancient document, isn't there a much more important point? Personally I think the point of the 2nd amendment being there has been vastly distorted but even if that were not the case, I thought a key point of the constitution was 'your rights end at the point where they infringe mine'?

Arguably with the proper training, the user of a sidearm or knife can be discriminate against who it threatens, injures or kills. Taking the argument in this thread to its logical conclusion, a missile or a bomb cannot be as discriminate and the risk of collateral damage to civilian property and life is greatly increased. Is this in and of itself against the actual purpose of the constitution?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked
Arguably with the proper training, the user of a sidearm or knife can be discriminate against who it threatens, injures or kills. Taking the argument in this thread to its logical conclusion, a missile or a bomb cannot be as discriminate and the risk of collateral damage to civilian property and life is greatly increased. Is this in and of itself against the actual purpose of the constitution?


First, I have made the point that to allow all civillians the same authorization for conventional weapons as the military does not violate anyones rights or freedoms.

You stopped short of making your argument that missiles and bombs cannot be discriminate and said cannot be as discriminate, which is a key distinction. Bombs and missiles are tools, just like guns. You pick the right tool for the job. When done so, each is as discriminate as it can be. To say tanks , jets, bombs are missiles should be restricted because the have the potential to harm more is the same as saying a gun should be restricted if it holds more than one bullet. Even then, based upon caliber and other factors, a single bullet can easily kill more than its designated target. The responsibility on its employment is up to the individual.

Interpreting the 2nd amendment as saying the people should not have the ability to protect themselves from tyranny, but merely some semblance of protection, is against the purpose of the constitution.
edit on 16-8-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


Respectfully the ability to determine what a firearm is or is not is the responsibility of the states. We know this because of state gun laws. For instance look at Californias laws. They spell out what type of guns are and are not allowed to be sold / how they are sold / who can own what.

The reason that is a state responsibility and not the federal government is because its not something specific granted to the FEderal government.

As I stated before I understand your argument but the problem is you are ignoring some of the baisc undamentals of the Constitution and Suprme Court rulings.

There is nothing in the Constitution that states a civilian has a right to won / bear the exact same weaponry as the military uses.

Like with travel within / acros state lines the action is protected however the method of travel is not. The same applies to this issue as well. An individual has a right to own and bear arms however the types of weapons they can own and bear are not.

Using a leap of logic to justify your position does not work in this realm. Its not up to the individual to determine what the founder meant. The US Supreme Court is the body that determines if a law restricting / allowing something is consitutional or not.

If we look at states who have open carry / conceal carry you will notice restrictions are in place. While a person has the right to bear arms in those manners, its not absolute. Government buildings (local / state / federal) and private property owners can tell people they are not allowed onto that property with a weapon - concealed or open.

Secondly what would your argument be if you went to buy an M1Abrams only to find the company refuses to sell the item to you. Is that a violation of our 2nd amendment?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321

Originally posted by something wicked
Arguably with the proper training, the user of a sidearm or knife can be discriminate against who it threatens, injures or kills. Taking the argument in this thread to its logical conclusion, a missile or a bomb cannot be as discriminate and the risk of collateral damage to civilian property and life is greatly increased. Is this in and of itself against the actual purpose of the constitution?


First, I have made the point that to allow all civillians the same authorization for conventional weapons as the military does not violate anyones rights or freedoms.

You stopped short of making your argument that missiles and bombs cannot be discriminate and said cannot be as discriminate, which is a key distinction. Bombs and missiles are tools, just like guns. You pick the right tool for the job. When done so, each is as discriminate as it can be. To say tanks , jets, bombs are missiles should be restricted because the have the potential to harm more is the same as saying a gun should be restricted if it holds more than one bullet. Even then, based upon caliber and other factors, a single bullet can easily kill more than its designated target. The responsibility on its employment is up to the individual.

Interpreting the 2nd amendment as saying the people should not have the ability to protect themselves from tyranny, but merely some semblance of protection, is against the purpose of the constitution.
edit on 16-8-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)


Actually, you are kind of proving my point. "The responsibility on its employment is up to the individual" (your words). I didn't realise the constitution was in place to allow a person to fight a one person war, it was on the assumption a well trained militia was in place, and let's face it there isn't. One person with a gun can cause collateral damage, of course and the results of any bullets fired should be the cause of regret. One person with a bomb up to the level of ordenance available to the armed forces could take out at least city when the aim was to remove an 'enemy' base. Who is the tyrant in that example, and whos rights are being protected and from whom?

That this is even being discussed is frankly a little concerning.
edit on 16-8-2012 by something wicked because: typo and grammer





top topics
 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join