Do you think our forefathers had current guns in mind when writing the 2nd Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven't changed mine at all. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to enable to overthrow the government but to prevent that from happening. Pretty big difference.
Click to expand...

Completely ridiculous. As has been demonstrated and explained ad nauseum by myself and others in this very thread. I don't know why you cling to this belief, but in order to believe this, you have to disregard countless primary historical documents from "Common Sense" through "The Federalist Papers". You would also have to ignore the historical context that brought the American colonies to a war with their sovereign. There is no logical way to come to your conclusion except through ignorance.

All this discussion over what an assault rifle is sounds foolish to someone who knows perfectly well how quickly they can be fired. If you don't know, find someone who has one and just see how fast you can empty the magazine. That discussion is up there with the magazine/clip discussions. And another thing, your arguments would go down a little smoother with the non-believers if you toned down your mention of tyrannical governments and rebellion.
Click to expand...

You're right-- having a discussion over what an "assault rifle" is most certainly IS a foolish conversation, because "assault rifle" is a made up term. It was made up to trick ignorant people into thinking an AR15 is an M16. Any semi automatic rifle can fire multiple rounds rapidly, as fast as you can pull the trigger. It doesn't make it a full auto rifle because you paint it black and put a pistol grip on it. What you are apparently upset about really indicates you have a problem with magazine capacity, not evil black rifles.

One of the basic problems here is that the simple fact that some crazy people who are not bank robbers or thieves in the night are killing people by the dozen and that fact is being ignored. The fact that there have been killings in schools bothers some people. Yes, we could have policemen in those schools (who would probably be the first to be shot and some schools have them anyway), if you don't mind a police state.
Click to expand...

No one is ignoring mass shootings. The Newtown massacre affected every American. We all want schools to be safe places for our children. How to prevent school shootings from happening is a common goal on both sides of the argument.

You do understand that Connecticut has an assault weapons ban in place, right? They require background checks, 14 day waiting period for gun purchases, handgun registry, and you have to complete a handgun safety course to buy a handgun. None of these things prevented Newtown. You shrug off having a police officer/ armed guard present, because apparently he is only good as cannon fodder from that all-powerful "assault weapon". This characterizes these school shooters as battle-tested warriors, instead of the cowards they actually are. The simple presence of an armed guard at a school would serve to deter people from attempting a school shooting. And those who weren't would be further deterred once the return fire started. The fact that guards aren't currently present in MOST of our schools are what makes the death tolls so devastating. Shooters know that schools are "gun-free zones", extremely soft targets.

Enhanced security measures, including an armed guard would make our schools safer. Banning "assault weapons" would do nothing, as was made clear in Newtown.
 
Wow, some of the news feeds show several states are already pushing back. Hopefully others will follow. A sheriff has voiced his intentions not to enforce any laws he deems unconstitutional.
 
rickyrick

Wow, some of the news feeds show several states are already pushing back. Hopefully others will follow. A sheriff has voiced his intentions not to enforce any laws he deems unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

My home State of Missouri just joined this movement:

And Missouri is pretty much following suit

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking...ro/HB0170I.htm

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 571, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 571.048, to read as follows:
571.048. 1. It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of this state, or any political subdivision, or any federal firearms dealer licensed under 19 U.S.C. Section 923 to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government relating to a personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains exclusively within the boundaries of the state of Missouri.
2. Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains exclusively within the borders of the state of Missouri shall be guilty of a class D felony.
3. Any person in violation of a federal law relating to the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition owned or manufactured and retained exclusively with the boundaries of the state of Missouri may request the attorney general to defend him or her for such violation.
4. Any federal law, rule, regulation, or order created or effective on or after January 1, 2013 shall be unenforceable in the state of Missouri if the law, rule, regulation, or order attempts to:
(1) Ban or restrict ownership of a semi-automatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm; or
(2) Require any firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.
Section B. Because immediate action is necessary to protect the rights of the citizens of this state the enactment of section 571.048 of section A of this act is deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace, and safety, and is hereby declared to be an emergency act within the meaning of the constitution, and the enactment of section 571.048 of section A of this act shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval.
Click to expand...
 
Guns ( muskets and muzzle-loading rifles ) of the late 1700's took about 30 seconds for a trained soldier to load, EACH BULLET. That is the way guns had been for the previous 200 years. There is no way the framers of the Constitution would predict that someday inexpensive guns could fire 15, 30, or 50 etc. bullets in a few seconds, allowing the disturbed or insane to wipe out multiple victims in a short spree.

The fallacy of wanting guns that are equivalent to the military's, to resist the tyranny of the government, is also ridiculous. 'Got tank ? SAM ? SCUD ? ... maybe a 105 Howitzer ? Of course not.

Not that it should be a secret, but the Constitutional writers put a method of CHANGING the Constitution right IN the Constitution itself. It has its own built-in Constitutional right to CHANGE. Times have changed. There are now 27 amendments to the original Constitution.

Consider the Second Amendment itself. It's an AMENDMENT !!! Eureka, it was a CHANGE from the original Constitution. 2/3 of the Congress' vote, or various other arrangements provided by the Constitution, can make an Amendment. You have no God-given Constitutional rights writ in stone, just a flexible document outlining where your rights end and someone else's begin, subject to CHANGE as the conditions warrant, according to YOUR representatives, in your Congress. Anger and stupidity ( yours, ours, and theirs ) won't push or prevent the change, but enough votes will.
 
Last edited:
The Amendment process is rather arduous, which is why the gun control crowd have never really tried to use it.

As far as firearms being inadequate to counter forces that have aircraft, artillery, even nukes, there are a few things you might consider, Alx:

1) You assume that government forces would be willing to use such weaponry against the citizenry they are supposed to protect, and to an extent that exceeds the casualties the citizens would be willing to accept;
2) This assumption hasn't played out so smoothly in various venues, such as Libya or Syria, where the opposition shouldn't have had (or currently have) a chance, but they are willing to accept pretty heavy casualties, or in places like Afghanistan or Gaza, where US and Israeli forces, respectively, accept constraints on use of force and restraints on infliction of collateral damage;
3) You also assume that the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches would be willing to run the risk of ordering or approving such use of force.

The fact that government actually has to consider the possibility as more than an afterthought is one of the greatest values the Second Amendment provides.

Besides, while fast reloading firearms do allow a lone wolf to potentially inflict disproportionate damage, they also allow lone individuals or small groups to have some chance of fending off mobs. Mobs don't need firearms to inflict massive casualties - just ask the 2,000 Muslims killed by mobs in Gujarat, India (via blade, bludgeon, and arson), or the 800,000 Tutsis killed by Hutus in Rwanda (mostly by machete, some by club) if they wish they had been armed with modern firearms.

What's that, you say? The government will protect you from that sort of thing? You mean like the UN peacekeepers protected the unarmed Muslims at Srebrenica, when the Serbs came calling, and the blue helmets decided discretion was the better part of valor? 6,838 IDENTIFIED victims, plus a few thousand others, might disagree with you rather strongly.

But you say that kind of thing could never happen in the US of A? Of course it couldn't.

Nothing like that happened at Wounded Knee... or Waco... or Rosewood (actually, Rosewood was the only one of those examples not carried out by government forces).

But keep supporting the rose-colored glasses crowd; obviously such things could never, ever, ever happen again....
 
To keep the rose-colored glasses analogy, your own glasses are evidently composed of prismatic cut glass. There are so many distortions and non-sequiturs in comparing Syria, the UN, Lybia, and then the U.S. government being unwilling to use force on its citizens, then thinking that we citizens need to be armed to resist the force the government is unwilling to use.

Please don't polarize or characterize my politics, because you don't know what all I support or believe in. I do believe in reality. Changes are coming.
 
Last edited:
Alx, you failed to grasp at least one of my points: an armed populace forces government to consider that it may have to deploy actual force, as opposed to blithely issuing dictatorial edicts. Some governments worry less about that than do others.

As another poster noted in another thread, the Clinton administration was not at all happy with the press it received from Waco or Ruby Ridge. Forcing those who govern to contemplate the likelihood of such incidents, and the resulting press, is a good way to deter them from blatant overreach in the first place.

So, guns providing some ability to resist tyranny is hardly a fallacy, whether in places where government has few qualms but the people are truly willing to fight (Libya, Syria, etc) or in places where government hates bad PR, and the willingness of the people to fight is rarely tested (here).

As far as the reality of changes coming, the louder administration mouthpieces have already become somewhat muffled, and New York's new law is already under challenge - not only by a pro RKBA attorney, but by state law enforcement associations.

Scaling back of administration plans, and effective counter attacks by pro RKBA forces, are not the result of believing those who insist on the inevitability (and implied necessary acceptance) of change; they are the result of the efforts of those of us who do not accept infringements, and who make our beliefs known via contacting legislators and heads of executive branches, writing letters to the editor, and donating funds to organized challenges.

I don't care what your politics are, Alx, but I find your message to be negative and counter-productive.
 
...." negative and counter productive "... ... meaning you don't agree with me.
Or is that " find " meant as a judge would mean it ? (rhet.) It's somewhat pretentious to couch your opinions as findings.

You mistake me if you lump me among your enemies, as I want to keep my guns, not have them registered, and not ever have them confiscated.

But to ask and expect the rest of the people in the country to tolerate the increasing number of massacres without any legislative reaction is unrealistic.

To really be productive, there should be some pro-active legislation requiring more enforcement of existing laws, and some further proposals designed to reduce the incidents of massacre. Without that, we are just waiting for the opposition to take their initiatives. Just digging in the heels and resisting changes in the law won't work, we need to propose something better.
 
Last edited:
Meaning that saying change is coming, no matter what, is defeatist.

I suppose you call it "realistic."

I call it propaganda for the anti side, personally; what else would one call statements that discourage pro-gun efforts and encorage the gun control crowd?

If your point was that we need to play aggressive politics in order to protect our rights, then your wording was not what you wanted.
 
My wording was what I meant ... You mis-construed the rest ...
Knee-jerk resistance is futile. Pro-gun supporters need to get in front of this controversy and guide the outcome with something better than just dragging feet.
 
Last edited:
If by that you mean we need to make concessions, you are mistaken. Recent polls indicate that younger voters are much more pro-gun than are the baby boomers. Many in Congress who were recently strident in calls for more gun control have become much more subdued. I expect that is partly due to the realization that younger voters might start questioning their votes; upcoming elections for members in pro-gun districts is another factor; the massive rise in NRA membership still another; and the multiple grass-roots opposition efforts springing up perhaps the biggest factor.

There is a difference between dragging feet, and taking a firm, principled, organized stand.

If you are not a gun control supporter, then you are a defeatist, Alx.
 
You wrote "If you are not a gun control supporter, then you are a defeatist, Alx."

Re-read that last statement; it's not what I think you mean, but then your thinking isn't very clear anyway, MLeake.
 
Alx, it said what I meant, but I will clarify further for you:

If you support gun control, then your statement that change is inevitable would make sense as a tactic to demoralize and worry pro-RKBA people.

If you are actually pro-RKBA, then your statements are self-defeating.

I am not confused at all. I think you are helping the gun control crowd. Whether that is your intent is still undetermined.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top