The Founders on the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms

Your right. Those who want guns removed should go establish their own country and leave Ine alone. I would support the separation of some states to allow them to do such.

originally posted by: neo96
Yeah someone is wrong about Jefferson:

To wit:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands or tenements." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Va. Constitution with (his note) added, 1776.

en.wikiquote.org...

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere


What about my having a scary black gun with a thousand-round magazine and a silencer on it causes direct harm to you or others?

That depends on your mental state and background.

a reply to: kruphix

Please explain why it is ok to place your morality above the morality of the times when our Constitution was written. At that time it was quite alright to have women not vote or to own slaves for that matter. Just because we find it horrible does not mean that it was at the time. People need to stop trying to change the past to make it easier to swallow today. It Is What it Was. And this country was the most free in the entire world then. Look at us today with your "superior morality" we are nearly as much slaves as the slaves of that time and our freedoms have been whittled away to nothing. We are on the verge of another civil war and have already been invaded by millions of the worlds refuse populations that are causing more damage to our country than a war would. As for the founding fathers they at least were not greedy, self-centered, self-serving socialists like the people at war with our Constitution. Go somewhere else if you don't like being free, don't use sneaky tactics to make this country the vacation GULAG you want to live in.

a reply to: Indigo5

So, then a landowner can own any Arm, so long as it remains on their land?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere


What about my having a scary black gun with a thousand-round magazine and a silencer on it causes direct harm to you or others?

That depends on your mental state and background.

No. It does not.

My being crazy does not cause you harm.

a reply to: Indigo5

NO

FREE MAN

Shall be debarred the use of arms.

Simple question do you want to be a FREE man or a slave to the state ?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere





What about my having a scary black gun with a thousand-round magazine and a silencer on it causes direct harm to you or others?

That depends on your mental state and background.

No, it has nothing to do with someone's mental state or background. The craziest asshole around with multiple violent prior convictions could walk down the street with a gun and be fully capable of not shooting anyone. You're basically implying that anyone who may have a mental problem or a bad background is only capable of direct harm to others, which is not true in the least. Actually, it's a pretty asshole thing to say in and of itself.

The USA was to have NO standing army except during time of war...

A standing army could pose a threat to the power reserved to the people.

Yes times have changed, but the hearts and mind of evil people have NOT!

originally posted by: tmeister182
a reply to: kruphix

Please explain why it is ok to place your morality above the morality of the times when our Constitution was written. At that time it was quite alright to have women not vote or to own slaves for that matter. Just because we find it horrible does not mean that it was at the time. People need to stop trying to change the past to make it easier to swallow today. It Is What it Was. And this country was the most free in the entire world then. Look at us today with your "superior morality" we are nearly as much slaves as the slaves of that time and our freedoms have been whittled away to nothing. We are on the verge of another civil war and have already been invaded by millions of the worlds refuse populations that are causing more damage to our country than a war would. As for the founding fathers they at least were not greedy, self-centered, self-serving socialists like the people at war with our Constitution. Go somewhere else if you don't like being free, don't use sneaky tactics to make this country the vacation GULAG you want to live in.

Ok, then by that same logic.

Maybe it was fine and necessary at that time to own and carry around a gun...maybe that is no longer the case.

At the very least, a discussion is necessary.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

You're basically implying that anyone who may have a mental problem or a bad background is only capable of direct harm to others, which is not true in the least. Actually, it's a pretty asshole thing to say in and of itself.

No...I am implying that people with demonstrated and diagnosed mental disorders that warranted an institutional stay due to them being a danger to themselves and others should not be allowed to own guns. Ditto for people with criminal convictions of a violent nature.

ANYONE is capable of "direct harm to others". Some people have repeatedly proven it without remorse and those people should not own guns.

America is a perfect example of a society which thinks it's free. You can go to the grocery store and buy all kinds of different products. Later you find out that almost every single product in the grocery store is owned by a few companies. Same with media, cars, almost everything.

America wasn't created as a free country. Just the opposite really. The best slave is one that thinks he is free. All you are is a piece of debt to a central bank.

How can you people honestly believe that you have rights? Do you honestly think that the 1st or 2nd amendment means anything at all? God given rights cannot be taken away, that's the whole point.

But in America they can. As Carlin would put it, America is held together by bull#. If it wasn't, the whole system would collapse.

The 1st Amendment is already null and void when people are being arrested for social media comments. The 2nd amendment died a couple of decades ago with limiting the weapons Civilians can use. The fourth is dead for obvious reasons.

The Constitution doesn't mean anything. Its a document to convince you that you are governing your own country.

The fact of the matter is, you are living in a fascist oligarchy.

Bill of rights, Constitution, is all bull#.

Your rights can be taken away in an instant. Like Boston for example with the Marathon bombing. And of course the infamous imprisonment of Japanese citizens in the US when WW2 started.

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: tmeister182
a reply to: kruphix

Please explain why it is ok to place your morality above the morality of the times when our Constitution was written. At that time it was quite alright to have women not vote or to own slaves for that matter. Just because we find it horrible does not mean that it was at the time. People need to stop trying to change the past to make it easier to swallow today. It Is What it Was. And this country was the most free in the entire world then. Look at us today with your "superior morality" we are nearly as much slaves as the slaves of that time and our freedoms have been whittled away to nothing. We are on the verge of another civil war and have already been invaded by millions of the worlds refuse populations that are causing more damage to our country than a war would. As for the founding fathers they at least were not greedy, self-centered, self-serving socialists like the people at war with our Constitution. Go somewhere else if you don't like being free, don't use sneaky tactics to make this country the vacation GULAG you want to live in.

Ok, then by that same logic.

Maybe it was fine and necessary at that time to own and carry around a gun...maybe that is no longer the case.

At the very least, a discussion is necessary.

No discussion is necessary,either abide by the 2nd Amendment or amend it.

originally posted by: waltwillis
The USA was to have NO standing army except during time of war...

A standing army could pose a threat to the power reserved to the people.

Yes times have changed, but the hearts and mind of evil people have NOT!

No standing army amongst the populace on native soil.

The Insurrection Act of 1807, furthered by The Posse Comitatus Act 1878

The National Guard is not subject to it as long as they operate in a Law Enforcement capacity.
The Coast Guard is also an exception because the function in a Maritime Law enforcement capacity.

In an attempt to understand everyone's POV, it seems to me that the question boils down to training!

The difference is that those in the military who have access to weapons of war, have been trained to use them to kill! Period.

Those in the police forces (S.W.A.T. and similar teams) that have access to the same type of weapons have supposedly been trained to use them in defense, but while committing an offensive act, for the most part.

Civilians do not readily have access to the same types of weapons, but the weapons that we can acquire (after jumping through the same hoops over and over) are used for defense, ONLY!

This shows an obvious shift in the paradigm regarding the 2nd Amendement. But, I don't think everyone sees the real picture.

The anti-gunners and even those who merely want "a discussion to take place", regarding more restrictions on gun rights will say that it's OK for the military and law enforcement to have these types of weapons. And their logic is that they have been properly trained to use them. But, who exactly has been trained? Who has been properly vetted to use what? And what specific training have they received? Is gun safety and public defense taught along side of accuracy and tactics? How long does this training take? Weeks? Days? Hours? Are they really any different than the hundreds of thousands of civilians who regularly train with their weapons?

I propose that those men and women who populate our military and law enforcement, are identical to those men and women who constitute the civilian populace. They have the same dreams. They persue the same goals. They abide by the same laws. Why does the average gun-grabber trust those folks over their neighbor or a stranger who lives in another town? It can't be the training! I can post statistics until my fingers bleed, that prove that they are not trained any better in firearms and weapons defense than the average civilian shooter.

So, what is it?

Organization?
I say, remember the Minute Men?

A command structure?
One must still follow the law. Authority will never supercede someone's intent.

Their oath?
Merely words. The meaning of it must come from within. If one is truly a patriot and a protector of their fellow man, reciting a paragraph, no matter how well written, is just an oral testament to the person that they already are. Period!

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere


What about my having a scary black gun with a thousand-round magazine and a silencer on it causes direct harm to you or others?

That depends on your mental state and background.

For the sake of liberty I'll risk the occasional nut job down the street with a gun vs the large number of sociopaths in Washington DC ruling this country. Historically, politicans have killed far more citizens than the lone gun man.

originally posted by: VVV88

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere


What about my having a scary black gun with a thousand-round magazine and a silencer on it causes direct harm to you or others?

That depends on your mental state and background.

For the sake of liberty I'll risk the occasional nut job down the street with a gun vs the large number of sociopaths in Washington DC ruling this country.

For the sake of logical thinkers everywhere, I will point out that is not an either/or choice. The premise fails.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

So, then a landowner can own any Arm, so long as it remains on their land?

Man, you are so quick with the bitch slap. Thanks for that point...

What a great slap down!

Wish I had thought of that...

Keep up the good work!

originally posted by: Revelations29
America is a perfect example of a society which thinks it's free. You can go to the grocery store and buy all kinds of different products. Later you find out that almost every single product in the grocery store is owned by a few companies. Same with media, cars, almost everything.

America wasn't created as a free country. Just the opposite really. The best slave is one that thinks he is free. All you are is a piece of debt to a central bank.

How can you people honestly believe that you have rights? Do you honestly think that the 1st or 2nd amendment means anything at all? God given rights cannot be taken away, that's the whole point.

But in America they can. As Carlin would put it, America is held together by bull#. If it wasn't, the whole system would collapse.

The 1st Amendment is already null and void when people are being arrested for social media comments. The 2nd amendment died a couple of decades ago with limiting the weapons Civilians can use. The fourth is dead for obvious reasons.

The Constitution doesn't mean anything. Its a document to convince you that you are governing your own country.

The fact of the matter is, you are living in a fascist oligarchy.

Bill of rights, Constitution, is all bull#.

Your rights can be taken away in an instant. Like Boston for example with the Marathon bombing. And of course the infamous imprisonment of Japanese citizens in the US when WW2 started.

Hey Man! don't hold back just tell us how you really feel...

I agree with you statement about what our nation has become over the many years of incrementally drifting away from the Constitution.

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
In an attempt to understand everyone's POV, it seems to me that the question boils down to training!

The difference is that those in the military who have access to weapons of war, have been trained to use them to kill! Period.

Those in the police forces (S.W.A.T. and similar teams) that have access to the same type of weapons have supposedly been trained to use them in defense, but while committing an offensive act, for the most part.

Civilians do not readily have access to the same types of weapons, but the weapons that we can acquire (after jumping through the same hoops over and over) are used for defense, ONLY!

This shows an obvious shift in the paradigm regarding the 2nd Amendement. But, I don't think everyone sees the real picture.

The anti-gunners and even those who merely want "a discussion to take place", regarding more restrictions on gun rights will say that it's OK for the military and law enforcement to have these types of weapons. And their logic is that they have been properly trained to use them. But, who exactly has been trained? Who has been properly vetted to use what? And what specific training have they received? Is gun safety and public defense taught along side of accuracy and tactics? How long does this training take? Weeks? Days? Hours? Are they really any different than the hundreds of thousands of civilians who regularly train with their weapons?

I propose that those men and women who populate our military and law enforcement, are identical to those men and women who constitute the civilian populace. They have the same dreams. They persue the same goals. They abide by the same laws. Why does the average gun-grabber trust those folks over their neighbor or a stranger who lives in another town? It can't be the training! I can post statistics until my fingers bleed, that prove that they are not trained any better in firearms and weapons defense than the average civilian shooter.

So, what is it?

Organization?
I say, remember the Minute Men?

A command structure?
One must still follow the law. Authority will never supercede someone's intent.

Their oath?
Merely words. The meaning of it must come from within. If one is truly a patriot and a protector of their fellow man, reciting a paragraph, no matter how well written, is just an oral testament to the person that they already are. Period!

I can confirm what you have said about the knowledge, skill, and attitude of some civilian shooter.

When I told my shooting coach about how we should train the cops and civilians on how to shoot, he told me that the army receives much more information from civilian shooters then they get from the army.

In the late 60's I was the "TOP" army shooter and still shoot well at 67, so I know many others that are more then qualified to safely carry a weapon.