Second Amendment

reply to post by cavtrooper7


One other thing to think about is there is a reason China or Russia would not try an invasion on America. We saw in Europe where guns were only in the hands of the military and German marched across it at will. The 300 million guns in the hands of America citizens plays a huge roll in whether our lands would ever see an invasion, and for those that think the world has progress pass that point we need to also remember that WWII was the war that ended all wars....

China is as aggressive as they have ever been in their communist existence.

reply to post by Xtrozero


To answer your questions, I am not here to prove anything. I am here to discuss.

Now answer one of mine - why do you suppose that USA has the highest death rate by firearms in the world -- which includes homicides, suicide and accidents, of 10.2 per 100,000 people in 2009, according to the Coalition for Gun Control? The next closest country being Finland, with a firearms death rate of 4.47 per 100,000 people in 2008, less than half that of the U.S. rate. In Canada, the rate was 2.5 per 100,000 people in 2009. In the United Kingdom, the 2011 rate was 0.25 per 100,000 people. [Source]

Now let me guess - people are going to jump on me and start telling me that my figures are "skewed", "wrong" and otherwise invalid because the source is "liberal", "progressive" and other words that are dirty to Fox News viewers. If you disagree with the figures then show some that are more accurate and explain why they are more accurate.

reply to post by Rocker2013


I fail to see how this discussion is of any merit to you, you are not an american so why involve yourself in discussions about our laws... Are you not one of those who say that america needs to stay out of other counties buisiness... So please stay out of our debate of our laws which have no bering on you... I could understand your participation if it were a discussion about international affairs or our laws that could affect you but it is not one.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by TheFlash

 

Damn it Jim I'm an artist not a academician,but that is a sad defence care to try again?

Ok I see that I have to spell it out - happy to oblige.

What you are imagining is a hypothetical scenario you have constructed in your mind. Who is this imaginary enemy that you envision that the US Military is not going to protect you against but you and your Rambo-like superhuman buddies are going to take down in true action-movie style?

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by TheFlash

 

Damn it Jim I'm an artist not a academician,but that is a sad defence care to try again?

Ok I see that I have to spell it out - happy to oblige.

What you are imagining is a hypothetical scenario you have constructed in your mind. Who is this imaginary enemy that you envision that the US Military is not going to protect you against but you and your Rambo-like superhuman buddies are going to take down in true action-movie style?

ZETA incursions down south comes to mind first but it is more a question of what happens when my country is no longer as armed as we are now that is what we trully address.
I can kill Rambo as depicted in films (he actually would have died firing a law rocket INSIDE a Huey).I,m afraid I haven't the inclination to explain the ins and outs of combat any more than a lecture of Habus Corpus from you would further this conversation.While you may be real impressed by hardware and explosions,we military pros have many ways around it.
And the fun part...I'M NOT ALONE!
Many combat arms guys are FAR better than I am.Yes we could storm and probablty takeout the capital but that would be rude and we couldn't complete that mission without an end game ,so we don't behave rudely
As to what exactly I have in my mind.It is school ,this is just fun to expose the complete illogical efforts like this that pop up on these forums and watch you say whatever, fail, and drop it.

reply to post by TheFlash

The second amendment give the "right to bear arms" to US citizens. It does not say anything about "guns". Spears are arms. Swords are arms. Clubs are arms. As long as citizens have the right to bear those items then they have the right to "bear arms", right? After all, the Amendment does NOT say that they can bear "any and all" arms. If that was the case, people would be allowed to carry flame throwers, RPGs and tactical nukes, right? Sensible responses only please.

you're completely wrong. yes, americans can bear swords, clubs, and spears, but please point out to me where the second amendment limits us to just those things?

it would be like saying the first amendment grants the right to free speech, but limits the scope of what can be said. "you're free to say "x", therefore your first amendment rights have not been violated. however, saying anything other than "x" is illegal".

oh, and please tell me how many citizens in the U.S. have been killed by flamethrower massacres, RPG sprees, and tactical nuke megadeaths?

less than 300 homicides with ALL rifles per year. around 6000 with handguns per year.

it would take 3.49 YEARS for current firearm homicides to equal the amount of people WHO WILL STARVE TO DEATH IN ONE DAY.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by TheFlash

 

Damn it Jim I'm an artist not a academician,but that is a sad defence care to try again?

Ok I see that I have to spell it out - happy to oblige.

What you are imagining is a hypothetical scenario you have constructed in your mind. Who is this imaginary enemy that you envision that the US Military is not going to protect you against but you and your Rambo-like superhuman buddies are going to take down in true action-movie style?

ZETA incursions down south comes to mind first but it is more a question of what happens when my country is no longer as armed as we are now that is what we trully address.
I can kill Rambo as depicted in films (he actually would have died firing a law rocket INSIDE a Huey).I,m afraid I haven't the inclination to explain the ins and outs of combat any more than a lecture of Habus Corpus from you would further this conversation.While you may be real impressed by hardware and explosions,we military pros have many ways around it.
And the fun part...I'M NOT ALONE!
Many combat arms guys are FAR better than I am.Yes we could storm and probablty takeout the capital but that would be rude and we couldn't complete that mission without an end game ,so we don't behave rudely
As to what exactly I have in my mind.It is school ,this is just fun to expose the complete illogical efforts like this that pop up on these forums and watch you say whatever, fail, and drop it.

edit on 4-6-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

This sure sounds like the sort of insurgent talk that the US Government sweeps the Net looking for... Good luck with that.

I can't help but wonder if this whole gun thing is like the guys with the giant spoilers on their cars. They are trying to compensate for some other 'hardware' lack...

reply to post by TheFlash


OOOOOH another deflection. Kid they already have ALL expressed info since the inception of the internet,they just can't read it all yet.That is what is being built down in Utah.
I am the least of their worries.
I'm married, any "equipment" I should worry about is in my head not my crotch,and she's not as nice as me.
Let's stay in topic here,You are wrong about gun control ,to continue...

we can discount suicides by guns. in 2011 the u.s. averaged total suicides at 12 per 100,000. the u.k. averaged 11.8.

this means guns don't drive up suicides. if people want to kill themselves, they will, regardless of guns.

we can also discount accidental deaths by firearms. these result because guns have become somewhat taboo and people do not know how to handle them correctly. this number can be drastically reduced by promoting firearm education.

The new study found U.S. firearm homicides peaked in 1993 at 7.0 deaths per 100,000 people. But by 2010, the rate was 49% lower, and firearm-related violence -- assaults, robberies, sex crimes -- was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993, the study found.

Those drops parallel an overall decline in violent non-fatal crime, with or without a gun, the study said.

A Pew survey of Americans in March found 56% believed gun-related crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% said it's lower. The survey said 26% believed it stayed the same and 6% didn't know.

www.cnn.com...

if guns cause crimes, wouldn't you expect the crimes committed by guns to stay the same or rise, while crimes not involving guns fall? that isn't the case. they've been decreasing at the same rate.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by TheFlash

 

The second amendment give the "right to bear arms" to US citizens. It does not say anything about "guns". Spears are arms. Swords are arms. Clubs are arms. As long as citizens have the right to bear those items then they have the right to "bear arms", right? After all, the Amendment does NOT say that they can bear "any and all" arms. If that was the case, people would be allowed to carry flame throwers, RPGs and tactical nukes, right? Sensible responses only please.

you're completely wrong. yes, americans can bear swords, clubs, and spears, but please point out to me where the second amendment limits us to just those things?

it would be like saying the first amendment grants the right to free speech, but limits the scope of what can be said. "you're free to say "x", therefore your first amendment rights have not been violated. however, saying anything other than "x" is illegal".

oh, and please tell me how many citizens in the U.S. have been killed by flamethrower massacres, RPG sprees, and tactical nuke megadeaths?

less than 300 homicides with ALL rifles per year. around 6000 with handguns per year.

it would take 3.49 YEARS for current firearm homicides to equal the amount of people WHO WILL STARVE TO DEATH IN ONE DAY.

edit on 4-6-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: typo

So are you saying that there should be no limits on what "arms" US citizens can own and that anyone who wants one should be allowed to obtain, own and use RPGs, hand grenades, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons?

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

To answer your questions, I am not here to prove anything. I am here to discuss.

Now answer one of mine - why do you suppose that USA has the highest death rate by firearms in the world -- which includes homicides, suicide and accidents, of 10.2 per 100,000 people in 2009, according to the Coalition for Gun Control? The next closest country being Finland, with a firearms death rate of 4.47 per 100,000 people in 2008, less than half that of the U.S. rate. In Canada, the rate was 2.5 per 100,000 people in 2009. In the United Kingdom, the 2011 rate was 0.25 per 100,000 people. [Source]

Now let me guess - people are going to jump on me and start telling me that my figures are "skewed", "wrong" and otherwise invalid because the source is "liberal", "progressive" and other words that are dirty to Fox News viewers. If you disagree with the figures then show some that are more accurate and explain why they are more accurate.

There is something that is skewed here and the reason why is because of availability. It is the same reason why Japan has the highest number of deaths in the world from blow fish. You want to compare a country that has few guns to America and say SEE!!! When we look at murder rates in general, America is the 103rd country on the list or about the 50% area of all countries.

Another aspect to this is Americans are a violent group of people, sorry to say, guns or no guns…. Freedom brings out the best and worst in people and when we are talking about 300 million that is a lot of people that do not have stifling controls on them to keep them in line. It is the same reason why more people are in prison in America. Our laws are not striker than other countries we just have more freedom to break them, or at least an aggressive attitude that freedom creates.

Another thing that is skewed is the gun murder rate is about 3.5 per 100,000 in America with 300 million guns available and the driving number of the total you provided are suicides at about 6.5 per 100,000, so this tells us that guns are the instrument of choice for suicides in America. Do you think a ban on all guns world prevent that 6.5 per 100,000 from finding another way?

In the end it is not about the instrument used it is about the social issues that cause negative things to happen. The old line “people kill people” will forever be the ONLY statistic that is right, well the other one that says “when seconds count the cops are minutes away” is up there too.

Originally posted by TheFlash


So are you saying that there should be no limits on what "arms" US citizens can own and that anyone who wants one should be allowed to obtain, own and use RPGs, hand grenades, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons?

It has already been pointed out that arms = firearms and nothing more. I also pointed out that our framers had two form of weapons, firearms and artillery and if they felt the need for anything other than guns/arms they would have said " the right to bear arms and artillery". What you are confused with is ANYTHING can be a weapon, but the 2nd is not about suggesting that "arms" means anything used as a weapon, it says The People have the right to own and use guns.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Rocker2013

 

I do love how you pre-face your statement that you will be attacked, as if you will just innocently defend more restrictive gun laws, and then go on to bash, name call and attack others not of your view point.

You are about as dishonest as they come.

I preface it with the truth, anyone who dares to use common sense and actual logic to argue for stricter gun controls will be shouted out of the room by people who refuse all logic and reason and wave around their outdated document.

This is no different to a religious nation wanting to maintain religious doctrine even though it flies in the face of civilized society. There comes a time when certain "traditional" ideas become obsolete, and the blanked statement of the "right to bear arms" is one of those blanket statements people like to defend even when it goes against every logical argument.

In Iran the religious traditionalists like to hang people, because it's "tradition" in law. That doesn't make it right, or civilized in any way. But they hold on to this even though it's completely at odds with modern society.

The right to bear arms is a good idea, in a nation where it's possible to overthrow a dictator, or in a nation where the people have the strength and morality to not shoot hundreds of people a minute when they lose their job or have a mental break, but you no longer live in that society - the rule is outdated and obsolete in your modern society.

As for who is dishonest, I would say those who refuse logic, facts, reality and scientific data in preference for an outdated idea are the ones being dishonest.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by TheFlash


So are you saying that there should be no limits on what "arms" US citizens can own and that anyone who wants one should be allowed to obtain, own and use RPGs, hand grenades, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons?

It has already been pointed out that arms = firearms and nothing more. I also pointed out that our framers had two form of weapons, firearms and artillery and if they felt the need for anything other than guns/arms they would have said " the right to bear arms and artillery". What you are confused with is ANYTHING can be a weapon, but the 2nd is not about suggesting that "arms" means anything used as a weapon, it says The People have the right to own and use guns.

edit on 4-6-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

So should any US citizen be allowed to obtain, own and use .50 caliber automatic machine guns, mini-guns and other other gun in existence?

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
reply to post by Rocker2013

 

I fail to see how this discussion is of any merit to you, you are not an american so why involve yourself in discussions about our laws... Are you not one of those who say that america needs to stay out of other counties buisiness... So please stay out of our debate of our laws which have no bering on you... I could understand your participation if it were a discussion about international affairs or our laws that could affect you but it is not one.

You'd like that, wouldn't you? No chance. The last time I checked this is an international forum, and people from all over the world can discuss all kinds of things.

I also don't think that my opinion is going to change US policy in any way, I can be damn angry about US involvement around the world when it affects others, and I can comment on the stupidity of the gun situation in the USA too. I can actually hold various positions on all kinds of things and there is not a single thing you can do about it

Originally posted by TheFlash

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by TheFlash

 

The second amendment give the "right to bear arms" to US citizens. It does not say anything about "guns". Spears are arms. Swords are arms. Clubs are arms. As long as citizens have the right to bear those items then they have the right to "bear arms", right? After all, the Amendment does NOT say that they can bear "any and all" arms. If that was the case, people would be allowed to carry flame throwers, RPGs and tactical nukes, right? Sensible responses only please.

you're completely wrong. yes, americans can bear swords, clubs, and spears, but please point out to me where the second amendment limits us to just those things?

it would be like saying the first amendment grants the right to free speech, but limits the scope of what can be said. "you're free to say "x", therefore your first amendment rights have not been violated. however, saying anything other than "x" is illegal".

oh, and please tell me how many citizens in the U.S. have been killed by flamethrower massacres, RPG sprees, and tactical nuke megadeaths?

less than 300 homicides with ALL rifles per year. around 6000 with handguns per year.

it would take 3.49 YEARS for current firearm homicides to equal the amount of people WHO WILL STARVE TO DEATH IN ONE DAY.

edit on 4-6-2013 by Bob Sholtz because: typo

So are you saying that there should be no limits on what "arms" US citizens can own and that anyone who wants one should be allowed to obtain, own and use RPGs, hand grenades, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons?

I hate repeating myself. You obviously missed my post on page 3 or just chose to ignore it for argument's sake.

There is a categorical and legal difference between arms and ordnance. There are also things that overlap the two slightly and are covered in US law.

Arms are considered any weapon that could be used for personal defense that is man portable and non explosive, a personal weapon. To further specify, it also demands that the firearms are of a certain caliber or smaller, otherwise it falls into the definition of "ordnance". This includes, rifles, shotguns, handguns, spears, knives, spoons, clubs, computer keyboards, walking canes, crossbows, regular bows, baseballs, etc, you get the idea.

Ordinance is considered any weapon that contains or uses explosives (gun powder is not an explosive as it doesn't explode, but burns), is crew served or not man portable, is unusually destructive, or is a firearm of a certain caliber or larger (12.7mm or .50 inches in the US). Firearms above 12.7mm are considered cannon and therefore ordnance. Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, bilogical weapons, artillery, guided missiles, crew served machine guns with calibers larger than 12.7mm, etc. you get the idea.

There is a gray area between the two. Machine guns are firearms but also considered unusually destructive but are also man portable personal weapons that are 12.7mm or smaller in caliber. So machine guns fall in between the two. "Destructive Devices" are typically firearms that are over 12.7mm in caliber but are typically portable personal weapons, and therefore fall in between ordnance and arms. Things like 37mm grenade launchers and some automatic shotguns are considered "Destructive Devices". "Any Other Weapons" are weapons of eccentric mechanism that are hard to define as "Arms", "Machine Guns", or "Destructive Devices", but are personal weapons that are man portable. Things like shotguns sawed down to the size of pistols, stuff like that.

In the US is is nigh impossible for a citizen to purchase ordnance. Typically the only private entities that have access are the direct request of the Government to have access, things like military material R&D/manufacturing companies, defense consultants, or sometimes universities.

Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, and Any Other Weapons, require an intense background check by the ATF/FBI that usually takes 6 months or more and a $200 fee/tax. Also, in the NFA title two process, you, in some states, have to give up your right to deny search and seizure as part of the deal of owning these weapons.
It's not a walk in the park compared to just buying a rifle.

Finally, the fact that you want to classify arms by saying the constitution doesn't say "any and all arms" is a facile argument. The right to keep and bear arms means all arms by the very nature of it not being sub-classified or defined further.

It would be like playing a board game and saying "the rules don't say I can't, so therefore I can". Which would mean you could do whatever you wanted. No, you can only do exactly what the rules explicitly state, no more, no less. The same goes for the constitution and how the Government ought to behave regarding it.

reply to post by TheFlash

So are you saying that there should be no limits on what "arms" US citizens can own and that anyone who wants one should be allowed to obtain, own and use RPGs, hand grenades, chemical weapons, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons?

so are you ignoring my post that shows guns don't increase crime, and aren't the big killers you portray them to be? are you saying there should be a limit to free speech beyond the current limits, freedom so long as one man's rights do not violate another's?

your argument essentially goes "should any american have access to RPG's, hand grenades, chemical weapons, biological weapons, or nuclear weapons? i didn't think so, therefore we should ban rifles and handguns"

it is a particular type of debating tactic attempting to associate things that belong to the same category, but not the same class, as being in the same class.

when have citizens claimed, or attempted to claim, the personal right to own chemical weapons, biological weapons, or nuclear weapons?

RPGs and grenades fall under class III weapons. extra backround checks, taxes, and inspections must be carried out to obtain these things, but they can be owned. are they notorious for causing problems in the hands of citizens? no. so why would you wish to change the current system regarding these devices when there is no problem?

it's for the debating tactic i mentioned earlier. trying to equate weapons capable of killing thousands to hundreds of millions with common small arms of the current era.

So should any US citizen be allowed to obtain, own and use .50 caliber automatic machine guns, mini-guns and other other gun in existence?

can you provide an example of when these weapons (that have been legal to own for decades) have caused a problem in the hands of a citizen? death tolls, violation of rights, etc?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


He ignored my post about the legal definitions of those weapons, too.

Originally posted by TheFlash

So should any US citizen be allowed to obtain, own and use .50 caliber automatic machine guns, mini-guns and other other gun in existence?

To bear means to hold so any gun that a single person can hold and operate should be allowed. Can you bear a 50. cal on full auto? As I said the framers did suggest a limit by saying only "arms" in their amendment so twin 50. cals mounted on you pickup truck would be going well away from their intent and more in the area of artillery, ordinance, cannon, which all are not arms as to the framers intent.

Since the 1934 regulation act there has been 2, count them, 2 deaths from machine guns in America, one was a cop killing an informant after 1986. In 1986 they were outlawed for citizens to own...can you explain the driving force behind that? Was it the one death in the 30s to cause this?

Explain to me why my M4 should not be full auto if I so desire? I have 28 years of military service, well trained, carry one in the field still as a contractor, but at home I can't own one.