Right to Bear Arms.

I hear a lot of people saying, "It's against the Second Amendment to take our guns!", "they can take them from my cold, dead hands", or my favorite "that's unconstitutional!"

First off, amendments can be amended?
Secondly, they arent taking away our guns. They are regulating the militia, which ver batum:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[1]
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]
.

And thirdly, learn your stuff, they arent taking them away!

But I do see how they are slowly controlling EVERYTHING we do, say, or see, or even teach. George Orwell's "1984", anyone? And with www.abovetopsecret.com...
I see a Red Dawn scenario.

The United States Bullion Depository Fort Knox, Kentucky. Amount of present gold holdings: 147.3 million ounces. The only gold removed has been very small ...

(in 1940's it was at 700 million ounces)

Total gold value is $243,887,700,237.98.

You think china is gonna buy that? We owe them so much of our national debt.

TextTo put China's ownership of U.S. debt in perspective, its holding of $1.2 trillion is even larger than the amount owned by American households. U.S ...

We wont give them 1.2 trillion dollars of our gold, which we have a total of $243 septillion of, because the usd will plummet so fast, we wont be able to grab the falling money, or accumulated wealth of America(gold). They wont even be using the usd anymore! It wont be a high enough currency to be used internationally, and they will invade and eat us for breakfast. They have the largest, most well trained military in the world.

Whats the government got planned? Here's China's modern day Samurai...

m.youtube.com...#/watch?v=ru-xQac_sWw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dru-xQac_sWw
(Im on an iPad, might not work, if not, Google "chinese army youtube")

reply to post by Mythfury


Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

First, a Militia, as defined, is a citizen army that be can be called upon, at any time already being armed, to defend [in this case, the US Constitution]. As intended by Thomas Jefferson, which can researched in many places. A government in fear of the people is a democracy; a government that is feared by the people is a tyranny.

Second, "shall not be infringed" read abridged or any in anyway constricted.
This is why, in the Oath of Office,"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Note that the Constitution is the first, primary, and most important part of the oath, Everything else following assumes that the first is maintained.

Therefore, any attempt at "gun control" is by definition unconstitutional.

reply to post by LetsGoViking


A well regulated militia. You think people having whatever gun suits them is well regulated? I'm sorry, but i disagree. We have three main military branches, with national guard and the reserves not included. Want a big gun, run with the big boys. Its not being infringed, but its being regulated due to technological and societal advances.

For me it's not the "taking them away", it's the fact that the usual suspects of gun control this time aren't in earnest. I know this because Dianne Feinstein is the author of the new AWB bill, and being a politician, she is surrounded by armed guards. The POTUS has them. They claim to want to protect us, but is that really the case?

If they're willing to sit down and show something that's been done on a local-level and works in regards to the gun control, or even the promotion of gun ownership, I'll listen. They aren't, what they're doing is proposing the same policies that went into law in the 90's, and if you recall, those policies didn't work. Maybe it's time to accept that self defense needs to be in the hands of the people, 200 years ago society lived with guns everyday recognizing them as the essential tools they are.

The sad part is the pro-control folks I know really, actually believe this will help, because that's what the media and politicians are shoving down their throats, and like me, they want to see this type of violence that we've seen in recent days diminished.

What is the cause behind this obvious intellectual paradox, is it cognitive dissonance? I know not, but I do know that there has been a disturbing lack of respect for the law of the land of late, and a even more disturbing support of it from the public. Just because a line of thinking is popular today does not mean the rights of our great-grandchildren should be diminished. It comes from selfishness and a general lack of foresight.

In regards to China our government chose to incur that debt, they have been more interested in furthering their own interests than those of the people for quite some time, it's a shame the payment will come from the coffers of the people, but to go to war with them (as some have proposed), because of our leader's financial infidelity would be a fool's errand.

Why are police and military members seen as totally incapable of having the same mental breakdowns as the rest of the populace? If they're too dangerous for us, they're too dangerous to be in the hands of our police, and our soldiers unless they're on a battlefield.

reply to post by LetsGoViking


No doubt, did you read my OP? I didnt say they werent restricting us? Just put some lay quotes to rest.

But amendments can be amended, with right of an uncontrollable population. Defend your guns instead of your brother is not how we should work?

reply to post by Mythfury


Respectfully, I must disagree. When researching the writings of the Founding Fathers, it is clear, due to their mistrust of governments, that an armed citizenry is essential to the balance of power between the Government and the people. The people must, at any time, be able to resist the power of the government should it prove to be tyrannical in nature.

In your scenario, how do the people protest an illegal government should it appear?

Originally posted by Mythfury
reply to post by LetsGoViking

 

No doubt, did you read my OP? I didnt say they werent restricting us? Just put some lay quotes to rest.

But amendments can be amended, with right of an uncontrollable population. Defend your guns instead of your brother is not how we should work?

Sorry, this makes no sense. Yes, the US Constitution may be amended by a Constitutional referendum. That has not occurred or been called for, therefore the Constitution must be adhered to as written. Period.

Originally posted by TurtleSmacker
For me it's not the "taking them away", it's the fact that the usual suspects of gun control this time aren't in earnest. I know this because Dianne Feinstein is the author of the new AWB bill, and being a politician, she is surrounded by armed guards. The POTUS has them. They claim to want to protect us, but is that really the case?

If they're willing to sit down and show something that's been done on a local-level and works in regards to the gun control, or even the promotion of gun ownership, I'll listen. They aren't, what they're doing is proposing the same policies that went into law in the 90's, and if you recall, those policies didn't work. Maybe it's time to accept that self defense needs to be in the hands of the people, 200 years ago society lived with guns everyday recognizing them as the essential tools they are.

The sad part is the pro-control folks I know really, actually believe this will help, because that's what the media and politicians are shoving down their throats, and like me, they want to see this type of violence that we've seen in recent days diminished.

What is the cause behind this obvious intellectual paradox, is it cognitive dissonance? I know not, but I do know that there has been a disturbing lack of respect for the law of the land of late, and a even more disturbing support of it from the public. Just because a line of thinking is popular today does not mean the rights of our great-grandchildren should be diminished. It comes from selfishness and a general lack of foresight.

In regards to China our government chose to incur that debt, they have been more interested in furthering their own interests than those of the people for quite some time, it's a shame the payment will come from the coffers of the people, but to go to war with them (as some have proposed), because of our leader's financial infidelity would be a fool's errand.

Dont get me wrong guys, i disagree with military, and believe that the people should be protecting themselves. But not like we even need protecting? If we have a military, no militia. Period. If we have 5 militaries, even so. Living with ARs is keeping us in the mindset that people are out to get us, when they arent. Have a pistol in your car, and at home, in the safe, and inform your children.

We wouldnt go to war with them, man. Our usd is no longer the international dollar, so china wants none, and they need gold. We need gold to back the standard of our currency because, again, its no longer the international dollar. Thats the only reason we can print it off like we do. With it not being the ID, our debt rises even more, and we owe a lot of people a lot of #. Why wouldnt they take everything we have, and with the corruption, and their organization? I dunno. It's just jittery.

Originally posted by Mythfury
I hear a lot of people saying, "It's against the Second Amendment to take our guns!", "they can take them from my cold, dead hands", or my favorite "that's unconstitutional!"

Absent an amendment abolishing the 2nd Amendment, it would indeed be, unconstitutional. Extreme limits have already been shown to be unconstitutional in McDonald and Heller.

First of, amendments can be amended?

Yes they can, so long 3/4th of the State Legislatures approve of them.

Secondly, they arent taking away our guns. They are regulating the militia, which ver batum:

Second Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment
Amendment II. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And thirdly, learn your stuff, they arent taking them away!

I am interested here in your logic. The Supreme Court has continually expressed that the Second Amendment applies to individuals and their inherent Right to self-defense; which is outside the scope of a militia. So any actions taken against "arms" is in fact not only limiting militias, but also the individual Right to keep and bear those arms. What say you?!

I pass on the rest of your thread because it, at the moment, has nothing to do with your original premise.

reply to post by LetsGoViking


I like the respect. This is what I wanted. Someone to teach me stuff, i forgot to think of.

Brute force through military isnt the way to disrupt an illegal government. We have a new battlefield of which Anonymous has grasped and used to their advantage; the internet. They are giving them one last chance to call for world peace, or all place will be exposed for their lies. What government isnt corrupt, today? But adhering to the past, to move forward? THAT doesnt make sense. We shouldnt be trying to live in the past like that. Times change. People change. So adhering to a 200 yr old policy, i would call that living in the past.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


My logic is most people defend themselves with knives. Only in mexico have i heard of automatic weapon used on and against each other. I went there on a cruise, its beautiful. But here, the automatics are used in drive by's, school shootings, etc, not self defense, but a quick kill. Pistols can still be used. But if an intruder is your home, i wouldnt blame the gun laws if you get killed, you might just end up that way due to the determination of said intruder.

Is it? The right to bear arms has nothing to do with the fact that we might be unarmed during the fragile economic time? Hmm. Okay. Pass on it. Your loss of info.

reply to post by Mythfury


I'm not sure I understand, how does owning an AR (I don't own one) mean I think someone is out to get me? If I in fact chose to buy one odds are it would be because I found it to be an enjoyable for target shooting or because of the basic practicality of such a weapon, they're lightly built and convenient as opposed to the alternatives.

Also, I think it's unlikely that China will come and take anything from us, as they've pretty much got everything they need, their economy is booming at the moment.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

We have the right to bear arms. Not connected to a militia. A militia is old school, when military wasnt enough to defend from invading countries. Again, its not unconstitutional.

Originally posted by Mythfury
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

My logic is most people defend themselves with knives. Only in mexico have i heard of automatic weapon used on and against each other. I went there on a cruise, its beautiful. But here, the automatics are used in drive by's, school shootings, etc, not self defense, but a quick kill. Pistols can still be used. But if an intruder is your home, i wouldnt blame the gun laws if you get killed, you might just end up that way due to the determination of said intruder.

Most people defend themselves by knives? Okay. "Most" people defend themselves how they see fit; hence the utilization of the term "arms" in the Second Amendment. It isn't limited to guns, knives, blunt objects, a slew of jacks placed strategically; it states that the People have the Right to protection.

To note though, I suggest going to a portion of Mexico that isn't a tourist spot and just see how much they protect themselves with knives. Go to Juarez and find out how automatic weapons are used, despite strict gun-laws, to exert criminal force.

Is it? The right to bear arms has nothing to do with the fact that we might be unarmed during the fragile economic time? Hmm. Okay. Pass on it. Your loss of info.

I am not passing on information. I am keeping your OP in the scope in which you presented it. There might be a time in the future where it becomes relevant, but as for now, it isn't in my opinion.

reply to post by TurtleSmacker


While ours was booming, we took from other countries

Okay, yes, they are practical. Why would you want one, unless you either: collect guns and have no further use for it, and it which case, dont own ammo. Or you are an adrenaline jockey that want to feel like a big guy in the military and intimidate others through use of mindset of "i have an AR, And a Sniper, And this, and that, so im a badass" or you wanna shootup a school.

Originally posted by Mythfury
We have the right to bear arms. Not connected to a militia. A militia is old school, when military wasnt enough to defend from invading countries. Again, its not unconstitutional.

edit on 27-1-2013 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)

Wait...you have changed your stance.....earlier you stated it was connected to a militia and that is what they are regulating.....which is it?!

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Most people defend themselves by knives? Okay. "Most" people defend themselves how they see fit; hence the utilization of the term "arms" in the Second Amendment. It isn't limited to guns, knives, blunt objects, a slew of jacks placed strategically; it states that the People have the Right to protection.

To note though, I suggest going to a portion of Mexico that isn't a tourist spot and just see how much they protect themselves with knives. Go to Juarez and find out how automatic weapons are used, despite strict gun-laws, to exert criminal force.

Aha! My logic is stated right there. They are limiting our guns, not taking away our right to bear arms, as stated, is knives, objects, etc,. Hence utilization of slowly enforcing control, but not being unconstitutional about it. My most people defend themselves with knives, isnt the truth, but my example of getting you to follow my logic. I wasnt using semantics. The heller amendment makes militia outdated.

And oh i know. Tourist places are well armed with tons of humvees. It was actually in juarez i heard about this story. I was in el paso, and we heard gun fire from the other side. A 14 yr olds birthday party got blazed up with automatics with 10 other people killed. And that was just one night. They dont dare bring that stuff here. Haha want an Automatic weapon. Leave america. Which is pretty much impossible. xD

Originally posted by Mythfury
reply to post by TurtleSmacker

 

While ours was booming, we took from other countries

Okay, yes, they are practical. Why would you want one, unless you either: collect guns and have no further use for it, and it which case, dont own ammo. Or you are an adrenaline jockey that want to feel like a big guy in the military and intimidate others through use of mindset of "i have an AR, And a Sniper, And this, and that, so im a badass" or you wanna shootup a school.

Why would I want one? Good question, I'm an avid hunter, and I choose to hunt game many would consider dangerous (mostly mountain lion and wild boar), once again, I don't own an assault rifle or AR, but I assure you there have been times I've wished for a 30 round magazine during some of my endeavors.

I personally doubt China would come for our yellow gold, if they came for anything it would be our sweet texan black gold. But they still need our infrastructure to obtain that.

Also, I understand you're trying to elucidate on a childish mindset in regards to the "big bad mindset", but I know full well that a simple tool doesn't make you big and bad, and in fact, many assault rifles have quite weak ballistics and stopping power, and require skill to be used effectively.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Mythfury
We have the right to bear arms. Not connected to a militia. A militia is old school, when military wasnt enough to defend from invading countries. Again, its not unconstitutional.

edit on 27-1-2013 by Mythfury because: (no reason given)

Wait...you have changed your stance.....earlier you stated it was connected to a militia and that is what they are regulating.....which is it?!

An OP does not state beliefs. I simply stated in a quote to external text, the second amendment first line, so a discussion could ensue. I'm not looking to be on ATS hot topics in which people pour their hearts into the first lines. If you wanna chat about it, lets chat.

My stance is that there shouldnt be guns period. But that is unconstitutional, and i will obey the constitution, however poopy it may be. And that quote you quoted was in regards to my posting about the two amendments justifying militias arent in use. And how the 2nd amendment has been amended, and how gun control isnt unconstitutional if they are regulating the guns of an ever ready to fight society.

Originally posted by Mythfury
Aha! My logic is stated right there. They are limiting our guns, not taking away our right to bear arms...

We should clarify here. The Second Amendment explicitly states that the "right... to keep and bear arms...shall not be infringed". This means, in the strictest sense, any laws or regulations made by the Federal Government pertaining to the limitation of the arms (read: guns) is in direct violation of the Second Amendment.

The heller amendment makes militia outdated.

What amendment would that be?! Heller was an opinion; not an amendment.

Leave america. Which is pretty much impossible. xD

Are you drunk? Because this sounds like my Friday night banter here on ATS that I am prone to do.

ETA-- refers to the mention it is impossible to leave: You can leave. Go. No one is going to stop you unless you owe some massive child support. I have never had a problem obtaining a passport nor a visa. So.....it isn't impossible.

ETA == To continue your recent reply:

And how the 2nd amendment has been amended, and how gun control isnt unconstitutional if they are regulating the guns of an ever ready to fight society.

I wasn't aware that the Second Amendment was amended. Care to point to the Amendment that amends it?! Seriously...is this how other posters see me when I am on a binge? Obtuse?