Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

a reply to: Indigo5

Actually in most States, firearms are confiscated when an Order of Protection is served. No due process at all.

The person, who is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, is not provided such things.

a reply to: nenothtu

SEE!

This is what I'm talking about!

You cannot even agree amongst yourselves what is or is not covered by the 2nd amendment. It's vague and needs to be clearly laid out so that we know what is what!

Hey my fellow second amendment supporters ?

Now don't you all dare hold all muslims 'accountable' for what terrorists do. Says the anti gunners.

Then they turn around and holds all gun owners 'accountable' for what a few 'nutcases' do.

Social 'JUSTICE' !!!!!

a reply to: nenothtu

Arms has been seen as Small Arms, or Arms that are deploy-able by a person.

The how and why it came to be is not something I have ever looked into.

Good question though.
Guess my Military/American history isn't as complete as I thought.

a reply to: macman

Guess my Military/American history isn't as complete as I thought.

Doesn't need to be.

Anyone who has had a sobering thought about American history knows these fundamental truths:

1. This nation was created by the end of a gun.

2. This nation streets are policed by the end of a gun.

3. This nation's foreign policy is dictated by the end of the gun.

a reply to: introvert

Here is the issue.
The 2nd was put into place to keep a Govt at bay. Now......when the 2nd was created, it was under the law and workings of that there be no standing Army.

So, since we now have a standing Army, which is controlled by the Govt, the People need to have that same ability.

I am a person that adheres to the Constitution, and expects the Govt to do the same. Since it can't and hasn't, We the People need access to ALL mechanisms in place to restore the power back.
Voting is the first mechanism.

a reply to: introvert

At the very least, the restrictions of firearms needs to be removed. That is the very least that needs to happen, if we are going to adhere to the 2nd.

a reply to: macman

Most sane people would agree.

An individual right is describing an individual's weapon.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Indigo5

Accept, a state provided fully auto capable rifle is supplied by the state in every home.
Along with a healthy stock pile of ammo.www.wnd.com...

WND is not your friend. You can check wiki or other sources to figure out where your claim fails.

Here is a link to a Snopes article about this subject: Snopes
a snippet:

The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (or age 34 for officers). Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home. When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In cases of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner as a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle. To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a permit, which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

originally posted by: introvert

Interesting. I wonder if the founders felt the same way when they started a revolution to bring about the freedoms and rights that they wished or believed "should be".

Without a doubt. They, of all people, knew full well that they had to work with what IS in order to accomplish their goals. Otherwise, there would have been no need for a revolution. You see, I said "base one's life", not "base one's wishes" - it's fairly obvious to the most casual observer that "wishes" are what are involved in "should bes".

If we only deal with what "is", then we are allowing others to shape what "is".

Nonsense. What is, IS, Mr. Clinton! No one "shapes" it - it already IS.

I respectfully disagree. I don't think people need to have ICBM's, nukes of anything of the sort. But that's just my opinion.

I have a simple question, but a serious one - how many people of your acquaintance are capable of getting their very own nuke? I mean that seriously, because I need to know - even nations have to bring the entire resources of their nations to bear in order to get them - you have friends that can whip one up in the basement? If not, how in the world does that notion even enter the debate?

Other WMDs are a lot simpler. I'd never go for a nuke, because I can whip up some truly nasty and less long-lasting crap in my basement much easier than building a machine gun, and FAR easier than trying to get a nuke! Matter of fact, that particular nastiness is more likely to be what one would encounter in any mass attempt to come after my firearms. Mass assaults call for mass defense, and mass destruction - anyone can do it with a bit of study and forethought.

Nukes are just ridiculous in this context, what they call a "red herring".

Agreed, but I still don't think Joe Blow down the street needs an anti-aircraft system in his backyard.

Whether he needs one or not is not at discussion. He has the right to have one if he wants it, according to the letter of the law. "Need" is not an element of that law. Now, should Joe Blow decide to take down a civilian airliner with his AA system, that is covered under other laws as "murder". No more laws are needed in that regard. Use the ones you've already got, and it's all covered.

Absurd. Deciding as a culture and society what is acceptable and safe to have available to the public is not the same as capitulating to some "overlords".

Of course it is. "Society" has no more right to disparage my rights, or yours, than "government" or "the guy down the street" has. That's why the phrase "inalienable rights" entered into the Declaration of Independence. "Society" was preventing the exercise of individual rights by capitulating to an over-bearing overlord. That's why there even WAS a revolution!

It's vague because it leaves the entire amendment open to individual interpretation and I don't like that. I believe we have the right to "arms" up to a certain point. You go all the way and some others believe we shouldn't have anything more than sticks and stones because "guns are evil". I believe we need to stop the debate, discuss as a nation what is acceptable and put it in black and white so the gun-grabbers will stfu and the pro-2nd people can go about their business knowing that their rights are clearly defined.....no longer open to debate or individual interpretation.

Webster:

arm

noun, often attributive

Definition of ARM
1
a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm
b : a combat branch (as of an army)
c : an organized branch of national defense (as the navy)
2
plural
a : the hereditary heraldic devices of a family
b : heraldic devices adopted by a government
3
plural
a : active hostilities : warfare
b : military service
— up in arms
: aroused and ready to undertake a fight or conflict
Origin of ARM
Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Anglo-French, from Latin arma
First Known Use: 13th century

I hope that clears the concept, and the vagaries, up for you. Words in common use only need to be defined for those who have either never encountered them, OR those who want to circumvent them and redefine what they mean to something more to their liking. I'm going to assume that in your case you've never heard the word before, because to think the alternative of you would be attributing ulterior motives to your argument.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: introvert

At the very least, the restrictions of firearms needs to be removed. That is the very least that needs to happen, if we are going to adhere to the 2nd.

I completely agree.

But that is never going to happen unless we are willing to take a look at the 2nd, revise is to clearly define what the right allows, and set it in stone.

Since the 2nd is not specific, it has allowed politicians and government the extra space to come in and pass legislation to define it as they see fit. I don't like that and I bet neither do you.

Is my point coming across a bit clearer now?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Actually in most States, firearms are confiscated when an Order of Protection is served. No due process at all.

The person, who is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, is not provided such things.

I am going to need a reliable link or citation before responding.

No offense, but folks are just saying stuff...Help me out and give me something to back it up.

a reply to: nenothtu

Like I said earlier, you guys cannot even come to a consensus amongst yourselves as to what the 2nd does or does not mean. Which illustrates what my main point has been from the very beginning.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Actually in most States, firearms are confiscated when an Order of Protection is served. No due process at all.

The person, who is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, is not provided such things.

I am going to need a reliable link or citation before responding.

No offense, but folks are just saying stuff...Help me out and give me something to back it up.

Here is how it works in Pennsylvania:

The Pennsylvania statute establishing the prohibition against persons who are the subject of an active protection from abuse order from possessing firearms is:

18 Pa.C.S. § 6105. Persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms. Section 6105(c)(6) specifically provides: (6) A person who is the subject of an active protection from abuse order issued pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108, which order provided for the relinquishment of firearms during the period of time the order is in effect. This prohibition shall terminate upon the expiration or vacation of an active protection from abuse order or portion thereof relating to the relinquishment of firearms.

Source

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: macman

Most sane people would agree.

An individual right is describing an individual's weapon.

Apparently each person has their own definition of what "arms" mean.

Kind of defeats the purpose of having a right when it's up to individual interpretation, does it not?

a reply to: butcherguy

He said every home is required...I found that only Military Members were required and that the Ammo provision and other requirements have been changed. They actually kept the ammo in sealed boxes with government seals subject to inspection....but if service is mandatory it might bring things closer to the "every home" claim..either way WND sucks as a source for reliable facts. other sources can be found...let me look..

The law allows citizens or legal residents over the age of 18, who have obtained a permit from the government and who have no criminal record or history of mental illness, to buy up to three weapons from an authorized dealer, with the exception of automatic firearms and selective fire weapons, which are banned. Semiautomatics, which have caused havoc in the U.S., can be legally purchased.

The authorities made one concession, though: since 2008, all military — but not private — ammunition must be stored in central arsenals rather than in soldiers’ homes.

world.time.com...

That said...culture certainly does play a significant part in the Swiss paradigm of low gun violence and high gun ownership.

But at the end of the day...the USA is not Switzerland and never will be.

a reply to: Indigo5
I tried to find facts (I think this is trustworthy enough as a source) and posted them.
That's all I was doing.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: macman

Most sane people would agree.

An individual right is describing an individual's weapon.

Apparently each person has their own definition of what "arms" mean.

Kind of defeats the purpose of having a right when it's up to individual interpretation, does it not?

Maybe the 2nd amendment guarantees our right to bare "Arms"...ya know, short sleeves and such?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Actually in most States, firearms are confiscated when an Order of Protection is served. No due process at all.

The person, who is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, is not provided such things.

I know they are in North Carolina - § 50B-3.1. Surrender and disposal of firearms; violations; exemptions.

Surrendered upon service of the protective order, not after a conviction of the cause it was issued for. In NC, they are often issued for no cause at all beyond an accusation by a pissed off partner. For the same reason, the courts "findings" for the order generally include a surrender of weapons, because only one side is being heard in court for the ex parte order, and no defense is permitted. I know this for fact. I was subjected to such actions, and later found not guilty. Over 6 months later. The accusing party refused to show for 6 months to make the accusations, because she didn't want to be caught lying in court. She did not show until I moved for dismissal on that basis, and the court ordered her to show up then.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: nenothtu

SEE!

This is what I'm talking about!

You cannot even agree amongst yourselves what is or is not covered by the 2nd amendment. It's vague and needs to be clearly laid out so that we know what is what!

We don't have to agree "amongst ourselves", because Webster, a disinterested third party, has already defined the term for us, for common use.