The Second Amendment is a Relic - Its Purpose is Long Past.

Originally posted by CrisMajor
reply to post by Julie Washington

 

Come take my guns mate, I dare you.
If someone at that school had a gun or at least a tazer; the principle, a teacher, anyone really, this wouldn't have happened.

Actually I wish that someone in the school had a gun. I fully support any teacher or principle carring a gun. I disagree with the laws that establilshed "gun free zones". Like that is going to stop anyone that desires to shoot someone.

Originally posted by Julie Washington

"There is thus no constitutional protection whatsoever for the semiautomatic rifle that killed the kids in Newtown."

The Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago. Its purpose is long past. As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.

Source

This is an excellent article the explains the reasons the 2nd amendment was created, and how it's been used in the SCOTUS.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the new Federal Government established in 1789 from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a Federal standing army. It was a concern that was relevant perhaps for a few years around the birth of the country. It is irrelevant today. Americans do not rely on state militias in 2012 for our freedom from the federal government

Now is the time to establish new gun control laws and perhaps an all out ban on all automatic and semi automatic weapons.

You mean another brainwashing campaign by the liberal progressive left? Guns being in the publics hands is HOW AMERICA BECAME AMERICA.. The purpose of a well armed and trained public is to defend itself against tyranny. Not to protect yourself in your home or be safe at the movie theater.. If you can't see this plain as day then you should go learn some basic analytical skills.

reply to post by Julie Washington


You know how hypocritical that sounds?
You say that we need to outlaw guns, but say that a gun free zone isn't going to stop a killer. Outlawing guns makes the whole country a gun free zone for us, and a killing zone for anyone who wants us dead.

Originally posted by CrisMajor
reply to post by Julie Washington

 

You know how hypocritical that sounds?
You say that we need to outlaw guns, but say that a gun free zone isn't going to stop a killer. Outlawing guns makes the whole country a gun free zone for us, and a killing zone for anyone who wants us dead.

I never said outlaw all guns. Don't make up stuff.

Originally posted by Julie Washington

Originally posted by CrisMajor
reply to post by Julie Washington

 

You know how hypocritical that sounds?
You say that we need to outlaw guns, but say that a gun free zone isn't going to stop a killer. Outlawing guns makes the whole country a gun free zone for us, and a killing zone for anyone who wants us dead.

I never said outlaw all guns. Don't make up stuff.

I smell troll bread.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

While the argument can be made that the might of the military is so much greater than it's citizenry that there could be no overthrow of the government, there is still the fact that the military is made up of citizens who took an oath to protect the Constitution which could mean half of them could take sides with the citizenry. I doubt it would ever come to that but the government knows this to be true and will no doubt take that fact into account. As long as the Second Amendment exists it will be protected one way or another and is in itself a deterrent to tyranny whether needed literally or not.

I'm running out of energy on the gun posts thing but I am not in favor of changing any of the amendments on the constitution I am a gun owner but I feel as though this is a much larger social issue that isn't going to be fixed by putting a band aid on a gaping wound that is in desperate need of sutures.

That being said I feel this is much more closely related to the health care issues we have refused for years to address

reply to post by Julie Washington


Your right, I apologize.
Because Pistols aren't semi automatic and pump-action shotguns are perfectly safe, and a weapon of choice when going up against PMCs hired to control the populace and whatnot.
That was sarcasm, just in case you couldn't tell.
Now bolt-action rifles are all well and good, but not when your going up against full-auto, body armor and IFVs

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Ben Franklin


What a silly thing to suggest that a RIGHT is a relic. It's purpose is not anywhere in the OP. The purpose of the second amendment is this :

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 of 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.

It is our right to alter or abolish our government should it become destructive of it's own ends. That was put in there as a permanent right, for a reason. Should our government EVER become destructive of it's own ends. Should our government start turning it's guns on it's own people, well, we may not stand much of a chance in this day and age, but damn it, at least with our second amendment in place, we would at lest have a chance.

Those who speak of destroying our constitution and abolishing rights are scared and emotional. And I do understand the fear when horrible things happen like they did at Sandy Hook.

But the fact is, people who call for banning guns after such an event are ignoring the real underlying issue. You can ban guns, knives, baseball bats and lead pipes, but a person dead set on killing, will pick up a rock and start hitting people over the head instead.

See, the real problem is the lack of access to mental health care in this country. People who need it, often times end up to far gone to realize they need it and even then, many just plain can't afford it.

The problem is not guns. It's not. Guns do not load themselves, cock themselves or fire themselves. The problem is not access to guns. You can put as many bans on them as you want. If a person want's a gun, they can and will get one, no matter how illegal you make them.

Just like the war on drugs... That failed and a war on guns would fail just as badly.

We need to focus our attention not on the piece of metal that we call a gun, but instead on those people who are clearly having issues and in this society, are allowed to get so bad that they feel the need to do something so horrible such as shoot children.

Our society only stands up when a tragedy occurs, but the real tragedy is that we don't stand up and help those people who need it, before the tragedy occurs.

Our mental health care system is broken. It's time we stand up and yell for a fix to THAT problem.... But that's only if you want to focus on the real problem at hand.

Popular or not, that is where I stand.

Peace and love

The real issue here is why have the states stopped forming and supporting well regulated militias?
The national guard doesn`t qualify as a militia, they are paid professionally trained soldiers.

When the founding fathers wrote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

they weren`t asking for opinions they were emphatically stating that it is necessary to have a well regulated militia in order for a free state to be secure.
The founding fathers weren`t idiots they were well aware that the country would need and would have a standing army just as every other country had a standing army at that time. Even with the knowledge that we would have a standing army they still strongly felt that we needed to continue to maintain militias.If they didn`t feel so strongly about militias they wouldn`t have specifically mentioned them.

reply to post by Julie Washington


Justice John Paul Stevens ought to BE SACKED.

His position as a justice calls for wisdom, but it is sorely LACKING with his frightening perspective.

The founding fathers were not morons or village idiots, or sprung out a vacuum.

They were intelligent men with foresight, whom studied history and learnt from its mistakes. Throughout centuries of our recorded civilisation of 5000 years, they knew it that might was power, and power derived from the steel of swords or barrels of gun.

They knew of centuries when tyranny, using just a few swords or a few guns, were able to ENSLAVE an entire population such as England and even ruled the then known world.

The founding fathers great revolution HAD NOT been about fedaralist armies or degeranates royalist supporters living in America then, but rather, a BIGGER wider world view that they had studied, learnt and personally experienced, enough to insist on the 2nd amendment to be written in stone, so that every future generation of americans be free from tyranny.

Justice John Paul Stevens had mocked the founding fathers, but worse, cast apersions upon the sacred Constitution. If we all have been living in the dark middle ages or present day arabia, he would have been spat upon and stoned to death. He should thank the founding fathers whom he had disparage against for their Constitution and insistance of rule of law - fair trial for all, for his present existance.

reply to post by redbarron626


Yeah, blame all the killers as "mentally ill" and justify the act, so you can protect your precious weapons.

Bring me 10 kids and ill pick 7 of them to be "mentally ill" to today's standards.

Yes a Human being did, who had access to gun instantly when he was mad.

Its like things we do when we are mad, but later regret. He was pissed off about something, and saw gun as the best weapon of choice for his act and it was READILY available.(he didn't have to illegally obtain them by paying huge sums of cash without being sen"

I wonder how far he would go with a kitchen knife.

Can you answer my question please? ....

reply to post by luciddream


Anyone who goes so far as to kill someone, let alone shoot his mother in the face three times and then go to a school is mentally ill in my book.

reply to post by Julie Washington

Well put, but I cannot in good conscience star your effort.
The state militias were later supplanted and replaced by the National
Guard, and put under the control of the several states' Governors.
With federalizing the Governors recently the N.G. has become an
internal standing Federal army, under the increasing control of the
POTUS. The Guard has also been commandeered if you will remember
to join in (rotate) into foreign combat which has no precedent until
after conscription went briefly away. When called into duty the
Citizen Soldier is copping just as big a bite out of the sandwich as
the man with the US on his buttons. Julie what you gave for a legal
context of the Second Am is maturing into an issue of what the
amendment was for in the first place... the militias were supposed to
protect us from tyranny. That oath says ".. foreign and domestic."
The Stamp Act was a big tipping issue for the original Revolution--
but the shooting against George II was started by an attempted gun grab.
I'm subscibing to this thread, and changed my mind about stars. Thanks.

reply to post by luciddream


Shall we all deny truths and blame then guns to justify those murders, by your logic. as those few UNCONSCIONABLE are making full use of sympathy for kids slaughtered, dry, to push for their anti-gun agendas and assualt upon the Constitution?

reply to post by Julie Washington


"Gun free zone" is just a duck sitting in between murderous gun totting population. These Zones would only work if zones around it are free of guns as well.

Country A shares both laws = Gun can be seen in streets, Gun can be purchased, Gun can be carried.

Country B no gun law = Gun CANNOT be Seen(obstacle 1), Gun cannot be purchased legally (Obstacle 2), Guns cannot be carried (obstacle 3), Need huge sums of cash to buy one from "Black Market" (Obstacle 4).

Mad mad from country B would have to go thru lot of trouble to obtain one while he is still furious(which would diminish over time) enough to carry out a massacre.

My feeling in a nutshell.

If we didn't fear death perhaps we'd feel differently but besides that....there were 2,500,000 million people in 1776 verses 310,232,863 million people in 2012 not to mention other weapons (including planes and cars) that we now possess.

Big difference.

Our goal is to eventually stop all the violence!!! So something radical has got to change if this planet ever wants to achieve that peaceful goal. We canNOT keep up this pace too much longer. And you wonder why people turn postal? This is not how we're supposed to be living.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


I think like Bible, Constitution should be updated to current times as well.

We don't live in the Wild west anymore.

*However, i do understand there are many loose guns among the population, which need to be addressed before enforcing any rules*

Originally posted by PrplHrt
This thread is one of the reasons I hate the young.

We gave you a beautiful free country and you're pissing it away.

You don't deserve it.

dumbest comment ever unless your above 80 years old or joking. Congress average age is around what? late 50's to early 60's your doing a bang up job with the economy and protecting our rights lol.