My second amendment rights

reply to post by rival


I see this all the time, "Look at what happened when tyrants disarmed the public" How about when non tyrranical gov'ts banned guns? Australia, Great Britain?

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the second amendment, but there is a problem here in the US when 91% of the electorate agree with gun control in the form of universal background checks and limiting magazine sizes and congress just pretty much ignores it

reply to post by acuna


I think it comical that you would believe such a statistic. When most ammo is currently unavailable and firearms are breaking sales records. Nics background checks are close to double what they have been. If 90 0/0 of the people want more restrictions then the other ten percent is better armed than the U.S. government. It appears that the current number one firearm for home defense is the AR15 in one of it's many variances. Prices on these have almost doubled. Yeah the people are all about more gun restrictions.

reluctantpawn

Originally posted by acuna
Don't get me wrong, I believe in the second amendment, but there is a problem here in the US when 91% of the electorate agree with gun control in the form of universal background checks and limiting magazine sizes and congress just pretty much ignores it

So, you threw a very specific number out there with 91%. So i am calling BS. Prove that number.

Originally posted by acuna
reply to post by rival

 

I see this all the time, "Look at what happened when tyrants disarmed the public" How about when non tyrranical gov'ts banned guns? Australia, Great Britain?

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the second amendment, but there is a problem here in the US when 91% of the electorate agree with gun control in the form of universal background checks and limiting magazine sizes and congress just pretty much ignores it

You must be looking at FLAWED statistics....90%??...Really??

Go out on the street and conduct your own survey...or just engage your friends, family
and acquaintances on the subject and see how close you can come to 90% or even 50%.

In Texas you'd better not even open your mouth in favor of gun control in public, lest you
become a social pariah or worse--get your teeth handed to you if you become too vocal.

I know of NO ONE in my circle of friends, family, business associates etc., who espouses support
for more gun control legislation....not one person.

It's not that I doubt the statistics that you refer too....I absolutely know them to be false.

reply to post by acuna


Sorry to tell you this but that is BS and propaganda pay for by the anti guns crowd that do not hold a leg when it comes to what the majority of the Population in the US wants.

as usual the vocal minority bark louder because that's all they have, noise and propaganda.

Originally posted by muse7
Pretty conflicting don't you think? You say they crafted the constitution with god's help and yet they decided to throw in the separation of church and state? Also it's a very well documented fact that the majority of the founding fathers were secular when it came to religious beliefs.

Except they didn't. Please point out the phrase "separation of church and state" within the Constitution.

Originally posted by acuna
reply to post by rival

 

I see this all the time, "Look at what happened when tyrants disarmed the public" How about when non tyrranical gov'ts banned guns? Australia, Great Britain?

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the second amendment, but there is a problem here in the US when 91% of the electorate agree with gun control in the form of universal background checks and limiting magazine sizes and congress just pretty much ignores it

1) .Violent crime went up in both countries.
2). Increased government control in all walks of life in both countries. Creeping incrementalism.

Originally posted by acuna
reply to post by rival

 

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the second amendment, but there is a problem here in the US when 91% of the electorate agree with gun control in the form of universal background checks and limiting magazine sizes and congress just pretty much ignores it

Funny, because that same group that you cite as 90% support universal background checks had only 47% disappointed that Republicans blocked the universal background check bill.

It's my opinion only and please take it for what it's worth and I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but here it goes.

For me, the anti-gun argument is simply this:

As a society if we "ban" guns or make legal ownership more difficult, there would be less mass killings in particular and less homicides and firearms related accidents in general.

On the face of it, there is some reasonableness to this statement but I think it’s a very naive way to view the world and it does not take into some very real and practical considerations.

1) The United States has a lot of guns! Just waiving a wand and further restricting the sale of weapons (or outright banning further sales) will not make much of a difference in the availability of firearms for any intended use.

In a 2009 study, there were over 300 million firearms in the United States in civilians possession: "114 million handguns, 110 million rifles and 86 million shotguns." And remember that there are about 225 million Americans over the age of 18 who can own rifles and shotguns too.

In terms of assault weapons, with just the AR-15 style alone, there is estimated to be around 4 million in civilians hands, and this does not include other assault style models like the AK, SKS, FN-FAL or M14’s (just a few models for example) and just one version called the mini-14 has had over 800,000 made and sold in the US. If your curious, the total world wide production for the military’s M-16 production is around 8 million.

2) Criminals don’t follow the laws!

This one is my favorite. Anti-gun people assume criminals follow the law. Adam Lanza killed his own mother for access to her legally owned AR-15 so he could use it in further crimes so I don’t think any other sort of law would have stopped Lanza from his murderous intent anyway. Another thing to consider is that aside from persons obtaining firearms by criminal means of say burglary, theft or murder, they can do it much easier by simply violating current firearms laws already on the books.

Any criminal can obtain a firearm by having someone else with a clean record who will pass a background check (a straw purchaser) buy the firearm for them. This is already a federal crime but it happens all the time.

Ask yourself this question, How did convicted felon Evan Ebel, suspected the murder of Prisons Chief Tom Clements and a pizza delivery driver named Nathan Collin Leon obtain a firearm? Think about this for a second, Ebel was released from prison in January (and went on to kill Clements and Leon in March), after serving seven years in prison. Three for felony menacing, robbery and assault, another four for assaulting a guard. It was Ebel’s second stretch in prison, after doing one year of a three-year term for felony armed robbery.

Was it a paperwork error? Did Ebel buy a ticket to a gun show and obtained a firearm that way? Did Ebel break into a gun owners home to steal his weapon? Nope, his 22 year old girlfriend Stevie Marie Vigil (who does not have a criminal record) bought the firearm for him. Of course this is a violation of federal law as a “straw purchaser” but it happens all the time under the current laws and nothing has been able to stop criminals from obtaining firearms this way.

www.denverpost.com...


3) Evil always finds a way to do dastardly things.

I mention this because some people think banning firearms will just bring an end to violence and mass casualties and magically bring peace and a new utopia to all of us. Again, this is also a very naïve notion as my experience is that evil will find a way to continue to bring death and mayhem no matter what laws are their to constrain it.

Federal law prohibits firearms on commercial flights. Yet 19 hijackers armed with only box cutters lead to the deaths of nearly 2,500 Americans and injured another 6,000 on 9/11. Timothy McVeigh weapon of choice was a U-haul truck loaded with explosive devices made with fertilizer and cost less than $5,000 to make. His evil killed 168 and wounded over 680 others. The worst school massacre in US history was actually in May 18, 1927 that occurred in Bath Township, MI where bombs planted in the school by a former school treasurer killed 44 people and wounded 58. Even in the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold showed up with not only firearms, but also 99 explosive devices including 2 20lb propane bombs planted in the cafeteria that police say “Had the bombs exploded with full power, they would have killed or severely wounded all 488 students in the cafeteria and possibly collapsed the ceiling, dropping part of the library into the cafeteria.”

More importantly, I’m afraid people intent on doing evil things will become better chemists in the future. Why be a disgruntled employee and walk into a former employer’s workplace with a gun when you can simply poison the water cooler?

Don't worry Ayjay47, there are plenty of us out there that realize that one day, we might have to stand up to an over bearing government (hard to believe that's not yet, I know...) the decision we have to make is, should we save all the touchy feely people that though we were being paranoid? I'm still on the fence...
I know that scenario seems crazy folks, but do know in that 1000 years how many time that same situation has come to fruition? Hope for the best...plan for the worst.

reply to post by muse7


Great picture, please see if you can find one that mentions the cost to overthrow say just two tyrants like Adolph Hitler and Hideki Tojo?

Because my sources say World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed, which also happened to account for over 2.5% of the world population. It cost the United States over 420,000 dead just to take care of those tyrants that were not of the United States making but the cost was much higher for those countries with Japan at over 2 million dead and Germany 5.5 million dead.

I mean gun control worked pretty well for Hitler and Tojo, just look at how many of their fellow countrymens lives they saved overall.......

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by muse7
Pretty conflicting don't you think? You say they crafted the constitution with god's help and yet they decided to throw in the separation of church and state? Also it's a very well documented fact that the majority of the founding fathers were secular when it came to religious beliefs.

Except they didn't. Please point out the phrase "separation of church and state" within the Constitution.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Originally posted by AckAckAttack34

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by muse7
Pretty conflicting don't you think? You say they crafted the constitution with god's help and yet they decided to throw in the separation of church and state? Also it's a very well documented fact that the majority of the founding fathers were secular when it came to religious beliefs.

Except they didn't. Please point out the phrase "separation of church and state" within the Constitution.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And nowhere in there is the phrase "separation of church and state."

In fact "shall make no law establishing nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" implies neutrality, not the antagonism that so many people insist on today.

Many of the "separation of church and state" lawsuits have no laws involved at all, so where is the Constitutional violation?

reply to post by NavyDoc


It doesn't say separation of church and state exactly that way, but it says it in different words. The federal government is prohibited from writing law that is based on any religions creed, and therefore that is the separation. The primary method with which government interacts with the society that permits its existence is through the writing of legislation at the request of or by allowance of that society. Ours is explicitly forbidden from writing legislation that is based on religion or writing legislation that denies its practice.

So no, the separation of church and state is not a law in that it is legislation written by the government for the society to use, but it is part of the agreement the people have with their government as to what laws it can and can't write. The constitution is supposed to be the agreement between the society and the government of that society on how the government ought to behave towards that society lest they dismantle or ignore said government for breaking the contract.

Originally posted by Galvatron
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

It doesn't say separation of church and state exactly that way, but it says it in different words. The federal government is prohibited from writing law that is based on any religions creed, and therefore that is the separation. The primary method with which government interacts with the society that permits its existence is through the writing of legislation at the request of or by allowance of that society. Ours is explicitly forbidden from writing legislation that is based on religion or writing legislation that denies its practice.

So no, the separation of church and state is not a law in that it is legislation written by the government for the society to use, but it is part of the agreement the people have with their government as to what laws it can and can't write. The constitution is supposed to be the agreement between the society and the government of that society on how the government ought to behave towards that society lest they dismantle or ignore said government for breaking the contract.

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

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

And that's the point. The state may not write a law establishing a religion not prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

It does not demand that religion be banned from the public forum.

Originally posted by acuna


Don't get me wrong, I believe in the second amendment, but there is a problem here in the US when 91% of the electorate agree with gun control in the form of universal background checks and limiting magazine sizes and congress just pretty much ignores it

Simply not true. You need to check your source. That statistic is complete garbage.

I do not trust the universal background checks, mainly because I may get denied over some bull. I will continue to carry until I die.

The average American, at least in the south supports the 2nd amendment and are against universal background checks because they will fail to keep guns out of criminal hands and limit the law abiding citizens right to carry.

Don't be fooled by the MSM and their statistics. They are put of the gun control agenda and propaganda via MSM one of their biggest tools.

Yeah. I think I might have misunderstood your point. It seems we have the same opinion and were talking past each other. D'oh.

2x post please delete

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by AckAckAttack34

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by muse7
Pretty conflicting don't you think? You say they crafted the constitution with god's help and yet they decided to throw in the separation of church and state? Also it's a very well documented fact that the majority of the founding fathers were secular when it came to religious beliefs.

Except they didn't. Please point out the phrase "separation of church and state" within the Constitution.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

And nowhere in there is the phrase "separation of church and state."

In fact "shall make no law establishing nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" implies neutrality, not the antagonism that so many people insist on today.

Many of the "separation of church and state" lawsuits have no laws involved at all, so where is the Constitutional violation?

It is a subject for a different thread, but you are correct, the concept of a "separation of church and state" is derived I believe from case law by courts trying to interpret how the First Amendment should be applied. You correctly hint at the grappling the courts have had through the ages trying to figure out what it means. Clearly, no US Government can establish say (for the sake of argument) "Scientology" as the official US religion. Also case law says a public high school cannot selectively support one religion over another (ei- Your Baptist Bible study after school on school property is ok, but the Jewish Torah reading club is hereby banned from school property-WRONG!). But beyond that it get's very tricky.

For instance, can the US Government give money to private religious based organizations that have a better track record for getting things done than the federal government can? For instance, if the goal is to cut down on the spread of AIDS or feeding the hungry, can the government cut a check to the religious agency that is already doing those services (very effectively and on a shoe string budget) OR, does the First Amendment totally prohibit it and the federal government's only option is to set up it's own needle exchange program or start up competing soup kitchens? Arguably giving money to a Catholic organization (even just to feed the poor) or say a Lutheran church based organization that is leading the nation in AIDs prevention programs could be interpreted as "Government showing support for one religion over another". It is sort of an ugly thing to sort out at times for courts you see.

And don't get me started on Christmas decorations at local city halls around the United States....

PS: The Constitution is a "law" ratified by Congress. The First Amendment establishes your (and everyone else’s) right to sue based on an infringement of that right of freedom of speech or religion. Also many states in their own state constitutions may also have some religious / speech protection written in them as well. So legal action against any perceived violation of your rights of speech or religion can be predicated on the First Amendment and possibly your own state constitution as well.