“We need automatic guns so to defend against the military. ” - What???

The OP is talking nonsensical emotional non sequitur gobbledygook. If you don't like the 2nd amendment, work to change it, the legal way. Go fight for amending the constitution. Its what the rule of law requires.

You cannot simply waive a magic wand and change society as it actually exists. The progressives in both parties in this country routinely ignore the written law and simply do what they want and its the reason why this country in in dire straits right now. These progressives have no legal basis for their actions and simply cry pragmatism like it a magic word like alakazam or abracadabra.

This refusal to follow the rule of law has also spread to the supreme court as it has whittled down the 2nd amendment in a pragmatic fashion while willfully ignoring the words "shall not be infringed." In fact, Supreme court Stevens that came out with an equally ridiculous, "I'd add five words to the 2nd amendment to fix it." But his 5 words are meant to change the meaning to the complete opposite of what its supposed to be. Just more progressive garbage.

Here, I'll take a crack at adding my own 5 words to better explain the 2nd amendment.

BECAUSE "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" IT IS NECESSARY THAT "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

the term well regulated militia does not define the right, it is the reason the right exists. The founding fathers fought a guerrilla war for independence. They knew that a gun behind ever blade of grass would guarantee the security of the country for all time. They chose against a centralized armory that could be attack or compromised and instead wanted citizens to hold their arms and to be ready to defend the country.

The founding fathers reason for the 2nd amendment as it exists is simple and effective. So as far as the non sequitur progressive reasoning behind, "well they had muskets so the second amendment only covers muskets." Ask yourself if you would feel prepared if you we called upon or rather drafted to serve in a militia to defend your country and all you had was a musket while you were facing a invading army equipped with the latest weapons. OP your argument is ridiculous.

The answer you proposed concern about automatic weapons is, OF COURSE its covered by the 2nd amendment as are tanks jet fighters and every other implement of modern warfare. The problem is that we have crazy people in this country that do (surprise surprise /sarcasm) crazy unpredictable things and a bunch of progressives with crazy ideas that they think are pragmatic but that in fact are only solutions for a world that does not exist except in the utopia filled thoughts of champagne socialists.

We need less of this progressive garbage and more real world solutions routed in what the law actually allows. When a school shooting occurs, we need to look to the second amendment for the solutions. What does the constitution permit? hmmmm banning guns? uhh No. Limiting magazine size? uhh No. Arming teachers? bing bing bing yes we have a winner. Its ridiculous to leave unprotected those that are most vulnerable. Unless of course you're a champagne socialist wanting to create a few martrys for your "cause." Then of course it makes perfect sense... in a progressive's mind. But then again that is where the real problem starts.

Almost nobody here has guns - just a few farmers - many of them don't also - and soldiers of course, and people who go hunting (not common here in the UK).

Only one of my relatives has ever carried a gun and that was because he was traveling to a region with polar bears n it, and was advised that he needed one for self defense. I think also had a bit of training how to use it.

I think many people here would have no relatives who have ever carried a gun.

Police don't either nor do burglars, and very few criminals do.

It's true that we haven't had a civil war since 1651. But I don't think that we would be more likely to have one if we had a second amendment - or that it is particularly a good thing to have a civil war to change things.

So - I wouldn't step in and say the same for the US. Don't understand the situation and is different from the UK.

But at any rate - it is not a universal principal or right as some seem to suggest. Just a US idiosyncracy. Here in the UK most people can't make much sense of it as a principle. If they know of it at all that is.

It's not discussed, no movement to want to introduce a second amendment. Just not thought about at all except in context of discussions of the US and wondering why they feel the need to carry arms.

To the OP, i'll tell you just like I tell everyone else. As soon as the Government turns in all their guns, I'll give up my right to own them. I can't tell you how sick and tired I am of hearing dipsticks like Bloomberg talk about gun control with 4 armed body guards standing right behind them. DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO!

You can say whatever you want, but the fact is that the 2nd amendment was put in place so that the people could stage a revolt against their own government, if that government began to ignore or abolish the framework, the underlying structure, of America. This is extremely clear, and if you have any doubts all you have to do is read the correspondence from the time. Even the personal letters of Jefferson state as much quite clearly, but this is by no means the only place where this explained.

Therefore if it is established just what the 2nd amendment is for, then the rights given by that amendment are almost nullified by abolishing all but certain types of weapons. I am not saying I believe people should be allowed to have automatic weapons, all I am saying is that the 2nd amendment had a very clear purpose, and what is the point of having it at all if the government can "interpret" it for us? Someone could easily say that the right to bear arms doesn't extend to automatic weapons, but here is the thing...Our rights are not meant as limiting factors for the people, but rather for the government. "Right to bear arms" means just that.

The Founding Fathers intended it to mean as much. They did not wish to live in a country or establish a system of government where those in power could easily revert to despotism, and without firearms there is nothing preventing that from occurring since the government will always have weapons of some kind. So it does not really matter what I believe people should be allowed to own, but what does matter is the reasoning behind our rights. One cannot argue what the 2nd amendment was created for, and anyone who tries to say I'm wrong on that point obviously does not know what they're talking about. We have it from the mouths of those who created it, or rather we have it on paper, but you get my point.

So I pose this question to you: if the 2nd amendment was intended for the people to have a means to rise up against their government, what guns do you think people should be allowed to own? And you are correct about the firearms that were available at the time, and at that time there was no need to include stipulations regarding which weapons could or could not be owned. They did not say we couldn't own cannon, which at that time was one of the most if not the single most powerful weapon available. But they did not have to say specifically what could or could not be owned, not just because only a few types of weapons existed, but because it is all in the phrase "right to bear arms."

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Gunplay would be the least of your problems in an active insurrection against the US. How many people are willing to dole out the cash for one of those Warthogs and then arm it? The USAF has all kinds of fun toys like that to go up against it as well, let alone routing a bunch of 'resistance fighters' out of bush lands. Infrared cameras, heat seeking missiles and *gasp* Predator drones.

The problem these days is high tech weaponry. How does anyone with a bazooka or a tank stand up to that?

This whole thread is based on a strawman...."many people want bazookas and automatic weapons"

Who are these people? Where do you hear this?

Total nonsense.

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
This whole thread is based on a strawman...."many people want bazookas and automatic weapons"

Who are these people? Where do you hear this?

Total nonsense.

Ill go ahead and say it.... I want a bazooka. And an automatic weapon......and an abram tank.... And an AA-12. But no nukes... That would be cRaZy

There's just no sense with you guys. You are bent on one fear (rather, two) and you will do anything to stop that fear from happening. In my entire family, from parents to great-grandparents, there haven't been one burglary/murder/raping. In all the sectors we've lived in, and in a range of 10-20 kilometre of those sectors, no such things ever happen. You guys talk about it as if it's something happening every single day, where in fact, it is not. And the few that does, I am pretty sure you don't need an assault rifle with a magazine of 20 rounds, which shoot 600 rounds per minutes. A simple manual Remington with 5 rounds can do the trick. And you certainly don't need a tank or a bazooka to defend your family or yourself against a burglar/rapist.

That is all the OP was trying to explain and prevent. This craze of having an assault rifle, or a tank, or a bazooka, just because the 2nd Amendment permits it, is completely insane. Since we're there, do you also want a F-22 Raptor, or a Predator drone equipped with Hellfire missiles? Because "the 2nd Amendment would allow you to have one", according to you guys.


And by treating pacifist of cowards, you are insulting Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., who brought the independence of India, and the freedom of African American people. Have at least some respect, if you can't have common sense.

a reply to: starheart

In all the sectors we've lived in, and in a range of 10-20 kilometre of those sectors, no such things ever happen. You guys talk about it as if it's something happening every single day, where in fact, it is not.

Hmm. Where exactly do you reside again?

I only ask because here in the states we don't use the terms"sectors" and "kilometre".

Rape, murder, and mayhem happens every single damn day here in the states.

The owner of the printing shop a couple of blocks down the road was bludgeoned to death by a crazy 22 year old. The guy was an innocent old man, way past retirement age. He wasnt shot by an automatic weapon. He was beaten to death, because he did not have a weapon.

My neighborhood is not bad, in fact it is quite peaceful.

It does happen every single day.

Go live your life all peaceful and happy.

Just like Frank did. Now his family only remembers him.

Most of us live in the real world.

Obviously you do not.

Have a nice day. And remember when you do finally have to call the police for help, they will be there in 5 to 15 minutes, if you are lucky.

a reply to: swanne
Firstly, when I was in high school in the early 80's, it was quite common for many of the kids to drive pick-up trucks with a single, sometimes a double, gun rack in the back window, and yes, they had guns mounted in them. It wasn't an issue, and no one batted an eye about it. The richer kids who had sports cars from their parents usually had a pistol or revolver in the car, under the seat. Again, it was no big deal.

As has been pointed out in several posts, what needs to be looked at is what happened, and why, that made school shootings the "cool" way to commit suicide. Afterall, that's a given, going in, they won't come out alive. They know this going in.

It really majorly became an issue starting with Columbine, and goes from there. I am wary of the 'mental illness' angle for many reasons, but if you have been payiing attention, it is largely linked to healthcare. Part of Obamacare deems that once a person has been treated by medication or counseling for mental depression, they become ineligible for life, to own a gun. This will exclude a huge number of people, right off the bat, as depression, at some point or another, will strike almost every one of us. It was a very sly, and sneaky back door way to take away gun rights. Depression does not magically make one unfit for life, to own a gun. It is absurd.

Secondly, the mental illness push bothers me, because I have always felt that anyone who takes a life, be it by gun, knife, strangling, etc., is already not normal. Hence, I have always had an issue with the insanity defense. As a child, I would ask my parents repeatedly to explain it to me, and my stance has never changed. You have to be, on some level, insane, to murder. Period. Screening out these people, that is the hard part.

However, you cannot take away the rights of all just because someone may get, or already have a screw loose somewhere. Talk about Nanny States and thought police! What if it were alcohol? There are happy drunks, and there are crazy, demented drunks who insist they can drive. So, because someone may drink and drive, which cannot be pre-screened, we will just outlaw all alcohol. Better yet, we will just outlaw all cars. People have been known to snap while behind the wheel, and drive head long into another car. Again, something that cannot be pre-screened.

And so goes the slippery slope. Once they start taking rights, they won't stop. So, you lose guns alcohol, cars, next should be knives, because where there is a will, there is a way. Maybe shovels. Rakes. Who needs lawn mowers. Hey, that guy strangled his wife with an extension cord. Outlaw them!

Instead of taking away rights, address the issue. Stop putting band aids on symptoms. Stop punnishing everyone for the crimes of a few.

Kennesaw, Ga. A law was passed requiring every homeowner that was legally eligible, to own a gun. Guess what? Crime, particularly home invasions and robberies plummeted. It simply proves that an armed society is a polite society. Criminals don't worry about prison, they don't worry about the death penalty, especially with most states having banished it.

What criminals DO worry about is running up against soneone that will outgun them. Now how do you do that without a gun? How many innocent lives lost is enough, after a gun ban and those that obey the laws run up against those armed criminals that do not.

Gun laws, after a point, do no good. The people obeying the laws aren't the problem. Instead of prostitution stings, the police should be focusing on gun stings. Instead of To Catch a Theif, or Bait Car, it should be concentrated efforts to get ILLEGAL guns off the streets.

As for the government aspect, that's been covered. Enough military will balk at killing their own that they would be using military arms against the government. It would become a military civil war.

a reply to: starheart
Well, I am happy for you, that you live such a charmed life. Some of us, however, do not have that kind of luck.

I was raped at gunpoint when I was the ripe old age of 16. When my rapist ran from the scene, he turned and fired two shots at me. Gratefully, as he ran, I had collapsed into a heaping pile of tears, paralized with fear. Had I not, I would likely be dead, as he fired the shots at the place I had been standing moments before.

I did take self defense courses, and can defend myself in hand to hand, were it necessary. However, when you are confronted with a gun, and that gun is shoved into your mouth, it's a very good idea to do what you are told.

When it comes to being raped, anything a woman does to survive is the right thing.

However, I will not be a victim again. In fact, I pity the person who tries. Perhaps this is why you look at the world through rose colored glasses, but sometimes, it takes becoming a victim for some people to get it. I feel safe in my home, and I feel safe outside it. If owning a gun is what it takes to make me feel safe, who are you, or anyone else, to decide I no longer have that right?

Quite frankly, it's really none of your business. It's between me, my gun, and the person who tries to take something from me that is not his. Until you walk in those shoes, you really have no basis to preach about others, and their perceived safety.


ETA - I was able to provide a good description of my rapist and pick him out in a photo lineup. When they arrested him, they found a womans' purse that contained a wallet, and an I.D., she had been missing. Also, some of her clothing was in his apartment. She was later found dead.

a reply to: Galvatron

Thank you for this nugget of reality in a thread largely devoid of it.

a reply to: Libertygal

I'm sorry that you had to endure such a horrendous thing, but I'm glad that you were able to find strength from it.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: bbracken677

Parenting? Mood altering prescription drugs? These seem the most likely to me...

No, as these "problems" are visible in other countries too, and they don't have the amount of mass killings as in the US, the widely available guns are the problem, together with the broken society.

Since mass killings have gone up in the USA exponentially, so has the level of government corruption. OR, correctly stated would be: As government corruption has increased exponentially in recent years, mass gun shootings have followed closely , and increased along with it.
See the true pattern exposed from this?

a reply to: swanne
It seems quite apparent, especially after reading your 'last post of the day', that you simply have no concept of that fact that there are bad, nasty people out there who willingly victimize anyone they think they can, and get away with it. You want people to promote 'harmony'. "Can't we all just get along?".

Well, welcome to reality. There are not only people living in every neighborhood in this country, but even in our government, that, given the chance, will prey upon those they deem weaker, or unable to defend themselves.

This is the typical Liberal/Progressive vision of Utopia, all rainbows and unicorns. I hate to burst your bubble, but in the real world, people victimize others on not just a daily, but an hourly, even a minute by minute basis. A true look at crime statistics will bear these truths out. Every 6 seconds, a woman is raped. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't make it any less of a fact.

There are lots of other statistics like that.
Rape
Robbery
Stabbing
Molestation
Armed robberies (not all involve guns)

I could go on and on. Point being, if you live in the US, chances are, you WILL run up against a criminal, and likely become a victim. People, quite frankly, are getting sick of it. Sick of working for what they have, to only have someone else that feels entitled, take it from them. And, trending of late, most of these criminals now, don't like the idea of leaving a witness behind. This means people die, over a 10 or 20 dollar robbery. Some have even died for less. A homeless man was murdered for 50 cents. Yet, people that choose to defend themselves are cowards?

Like someone else said, you must be young, because you have not had a real welcome to the world of reality. Until you do, your Liberal Utopia will be all you can see. You must also be quite comfortable in being so judgemental about an entire nation.

Just wondering how it feels, up on that throne. Must be hard, being perfect.

a reply to: LuXiferGriM

Thank you for the kind words.

I told my story, because as became apparent after this mans' arrest, he was an obvious victimizer of women, perhaps even a serial rapist, and definitely a murderer.

Do you, or anyone except the O.P. actually think that anything I had to say would have changed this man, or his actions? As for being a pacifist, who knows? It may be why he murdered the other girl. All I know is, I survived, and what I did to accomplish that was the right thing.

Does anyone seriously not think that when being raped, a woman begs and pleads with her rapist? I did. I even told him I was pregnant, and begged him not to kill my baby. Pacifism? Really?! If I had had a gun that night, I would have used it, and though it is never something I want to confront, AFTER the fact, I would have been glad I did it.

I hope I am never in that situation, but, if I am, I will not hesitate. I will try to talk, beg, plead. It will be my last line of defense, but, I won't hesitate if I see no other way out. I simply won't be a victim again. Period.

Perhaps having that confidence is nothing has happened since. Who knows? Who cares? But, if having a gun is what it took to make me feel safe going on with my life, it is absolutely no ones' place to judge me on that. Do I cower behind my gun? Nope. I can, and do, leave home without it. As I said, I took self defense. However, I am also smart enough to know you don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

The criminals have guns. So shall I.

My freedom of choice, and no one elses business.

a reply to: Libertygal

No, I don't think any amount of pleading or rational dialogue could have changed what happened, you did what you had to do. The simple fact is that those of us who are rational and civilized are often forced into situations where the only appropriate response is the rapid, accurate application of violence.

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
This whole thread is based on a strawman...."many people want bazookas and automatic weapons"

Who are these people? Where do you hear this?

Total nonsense.

No, this is actually true, but you probably already know who the recipients of these weapons are, and who really wants them. (but this isn't something the OP would want to admit, because his arguments all fall flat), er, but they do either way).

Yep, it's Obama's friends in the Muslim brotherhood and other groups of renegades who REALLY want them, and they got 'em. Hillary and Senator McCain had their hands in, (and still do), in helping our own enemies get plenty of stinger missiles and many other fine and dandy things that US citizens haven't even asked for, let alone own.
And don't forget all those back room weapon's deals still to be made by our electorate.
Gotta keep those wheels of war going for the sake of keeping the administrations and the old Clinton clan and Bush clan bankers and High falutin financiers happy!

The current administrations won't let any of our enemies go unrewarded, no sir'ee

originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: swanne

The notion of an armed revolution involving the population of America pitted against the US Military is pure fantasy. It'll never happen regardless of the scenario of 'state of the art' tanks in every driveway.

Why?

Because the US Military consists of sons and daughters who would never stand against the citizenry.

Really? Tell that to the people at Kent State in 1970.

Or maybe you can tell it to the people of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina who watched the US Military and what ever local law enforcement was left as they went door to door taking firearms.

Sorry to ruin your fantasy but there is no shortage of Men and Women who will do as they are told, no questions asked.

a reply to: MrWendal

Kent State was a disgrace for the US military and in NO, looters got what they deserved.

Comparing those two incidents to a armed insurrection against the government is akin to making mountains out of molehills. Kicking the British out of America... now that was an armed insurrection.