Protect Gun Rights - But rewrite the constitution

a reply to: Dwoodward85
Well the Americans at least have the advantage of a constitution that not only tries to define their rights but also says what is required to change them.
As long as Cameron can command a majority we really have zilch.

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: introvert

Please explain how my rights are infringed on what types of firearms I can possess. The only people that think our rights are infringed are the completely uninformed.

I can own any firearm I want, please show me where I can't.

A great example of someone that doesn't know what a right is.

You are going to say something along the lines of "I can have a fully-auto firearm if I get the proper licence". Correct? That is the line of argument you are about to take, is it not?

Show me in the 2nd amendment where it says "right of the people to keep and bear arms, except certain arms which they can keep and bear but only if approved by the government".

Since the 2nd amendment is not specific, it has left our right up to interpretation by government and politicians to say what we can bear, under which circumstances and only if approved by the government. If it can be interpreted and manipulated outside of the constitution, then it is not a right. It is a privilege at the whim of government and politicians. Our right has been infringed upon.

That's why the 2nd needs to be changed to be more specific. If we allow interpretation and regulation of our right from outside of the constitution, it is up to interpretation and it will only be a matter of time before stricter and stricter laws are put in place.

a reply to: introvert

*Hangs head in shame and kicks rocks.

Yes, you do have to have a license to have full auto, so yes, my rights are infringed and I'll concede on that issue.

Well played.

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: introvert

*Hangs head in shame and kicks rocks.

Yes, you do have to have a license to have full auto, so yes, my rights are infringed and I'll concede on that issue.

Well played.

Thank you for being honest. We need more people to realize that we're only a bad bunch of gun-grabbing politicians away from even more restrictions on our right unless we do something about it. The NRA, pro-2nd groups and a vast majority of the pro-2nd group don't seem to be looking at this from the right perspective.

I'm not opposed to regulations, but I am opposed to leaving it up to interpretation.

Just spitballing here, but I seem to recall the preamble to the 2nd conveyed a very different intent to that which appears to be interpreted these days by the NRA (not a huge percentage of Americans, but they have the congress in their pocket), and similar. Just to be clear; the purpose of the NRA is to generate income for the arms manufacturers. Period. Whatever they say is just to make people buy guns. Whether that's from fear, or from the "ooh, shiny!" angle, they don't care either way.

There was discussion in the preamble of not having a standing army, but rather a 'well-regulated militia.'
Well, these days there is a 'standing army' that is equal in spending to the next seven countries combined.
So, 'well-regulated militia' became 'well funded military.' So that can no longer be a reason for armed civilians.

I hear, "We need to defend against a tyrannical government."
Sure. I'm sure that your cache - and those of your buddies - will certainly make a huge noise should the government become tyrannical and you find the need to defend yourself against it. Good luck with all those Abrams tanks, F-16s, and drones they have - not to mention the USMC, Rangers etc. I'm sure you'll make a massive impact on them, and they'll be truly impressed by your firepower. I'll just bet the [militarized] law enforcement community, will also raise their hats to you. That said, please take a minute to look up what appears to happen in current society when Americans rise up to even peacefully protest anything. All nipped in the bud pretty quickly [and quite violently] by the new breed of government funded 'well regulated' militia.

In addition, there were concerns in the preamble that a local militia would be required to round up escaped slaves. We certainly don't need to worry about that these days, do we?

But people need to protect against the armed madmen out there on the streets!
Odd how infrequently there's someone about during these shootings that is not only correctly armed, but correctly trained for such instances. Surely a well-regulated armed civilian would have at least some training for such situations. No?

Home invasion you say? Sure. I'll cede this one to you.
Notice how when trained military, or SWAT go into urban, or room-to-room situations they eschew the long rifle in favor of a smaller, more manageable weapon? Surely an AR-15 would be a little unwieldy in such a situation. Plus, how far would a round travel through walls etc. So, I'll cede a personal weapon for home security.

Hunting!!! Yes. Very cool. It's a good way to keep the populations down of certain species, and I'm sure you eat everything that you kill...
But why the silly military look weapons? Right tool for the job, right? Outdoor Life's list of the best hunting rifles of the last 50 years included one AR stye weapon. They said it was bulky, and difficult to carry when compared to other hunting rifles.
So it's not optimal. It's all about the look, isn't it. That's a bit silly to me.

Look, I'm being a bit glib here, but I guess my point is that much of the argument put forth on the pro side is simple rhetoric and has no real basis based on real life. If you live somewhere where you NEED massive guns, and rifles, and machine guns, to protect yourself; the most prudent thing to do would be move.
I might pay a little more for property, but in the last 20 years I've seen exactly ONE weapon drawn by a LEO.
Personal choice, and personal responsibility should not come at the expense of common sense.

a reply to: introvert

Honest conversation is sorely needed on this issue and I'm totally open for discussion. As you pointed out(and something that went totally over my head) is that I'm demanding my rights not be infringed "anymore". Guess it's a, can't see the forest through the trees kinda deal.

I guess in my haste to defend everything boomstick, and having no desire to own a full auto, your stance(a valid stance) never crossed my mind.

Thanks for giving me a different perspective.

a reply to: Badgered1

Excellent post. You make some good observations.

The NRA is a threat to our 2nd amendment right and uses the money of it's members to fight for the manufacturers, just as you described.

I have quite a few issues with the so-called militias in this country. It has become more of a glam club for gun enthusiasts to show off their cool toys, run a few training exercises and call it a day.

Our 2nd amendment right was given to us to allow a means for the public to take back control from a tyrannical government. But the government has become tyrannical and the militias have not joined together to start a movement to take the country back. I don't believe they ever will.

Since we are all members of the unorganized militia, if your over 17, we need the 2nd amendment right to arm ourselves when the last straw has finally been placed and we are forced as individuals to stand up and say enough is enough.

a reply to: KawRider9

It is my opinion that we will never be able to have that honest conversation until we are able to get more pro-2nd amendment people to open their eyes and focus their attention on issues such as these. Some may not desire to own a fully-auto firearm, but if we don;t protect the right for other to do so, we allow our right to be infringed upon.

a reply to: introvert

I agree with you and will now be an advocate of legalizing full autos, like I do with any other firearm. It's a stance I had not not considered before.

Shall not be infringed means just that, not infringed.

My trap league shoots tonight and I will put forth your stance. Hopefully we can all come together and get the license to own certain types of firearms repealed. Just because I don't want one, doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to have one without the restraints that are currently in place.

a reply to: KawRider9

Now I am not saying that there should not be certain regulations in place. There should be. What I am saying is that the 2nd amendment does need to be amended to be very specific, as the OP suggested. This goes well beyond fully-auto, but it's a good place to start.

Good luck at league.

a reply to: introvert

Thanks for the good luck, I need it. We're at week 12 and my average has dropped significantly this year. We've only shot once with a nice day. Pouring rain and steady gale force winds makes it a bit rough.

Guess what it's doing right now. If you guessed raining like a # and windy as hell, you guessed right! It's kinda odd too, being I don't hunt in nice conditions. Not sure what my deal is...

a reply to: KawRider9

Sorry to hear. When I have issues I like to check the basics, breathing, stance, etc. Make sure you are comfortable and I also like to stretch a bit before.

originally posted by: Badgered1
Just spitballing here, but I seem to recall the preamble to the 2nd conveyed a very different intent to that which appears to be interpreted these days by the NRA (not a huge percentage of Americans, but they have the congress in their pocket), and similar. Just to be clear; the purpose of the NRA is to generate income for the arms manufacturers. Period. Whatever they say is just to make people buy guns. Whether that's from fear, or from the "ooh, shiny!" angle, they don't care either way.

There was discussion in the preamble of not having a standing army, but rather a 'well-regulated militia.'
Well, these days there is a 'standing army' that is equal in spending to the next seven countries combined.
So, 'well-regulated militia' became 'well funded military.' So that can no longer be a reason for armed civilians.

Before you pretend to know the intent of the 2nd Amendment, you should educate yourself so you don't repeat the same tired nonsense parroted by the anti-gun side for decades. Try looking at the founding fathers' statements on guns during that time period and read the Federalist Papers.

I hear, "We need to defend against a tyrannical government."
Sure. I'm sure that your cache - and those of your buddies - will certainly make a huge noise should the government become tyrannical and you find the need to defend yourself against it. Good luck with all those Abrams tanks, F-16s, and drones they have - not to mention the USMC, Rangers etc. I'm sure you'll make a massive impact on them, and they'll be truly impressed by your firepower. I'll just bet the [militarized] law enforcement community, will also raise their hats to you. That said, please take a minute to look up what appears to happen in current society when Americans rise up to even peacefully protest anything. All nipped in the bud pretty quickly [and quite violently] by the new breed of government funded 'well regulated' militia.

Most of America's fighting men and women would side with civilians in that scenario. Entire states would fight against the federal government and take their military bases along with them.

Stop using the same old tired idiotic nonsense.

But people need to protect against the armed madmen out there on the streets!
Odd how infrequently there's someone about during these shootings that is not only correctly armed, but correctly trained for such instances. Surely a well-regulated armed civilian would have at least some training for such situations. No?

Most mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones" so your point is, yet again, irrelevant. There are a few cases where a person with a concealed carry permit halted a mass shooting but those stories don't stick in the national media for months so they're easily forgotten.

Home invasion you say? Sure. I'll cede this one to you.
Notice how when trained military, or SWAT go into urban, or room-to-room situations they eschew the long rifle in favor of a smaller, more manageable weapon? Surely an AR-15 would be a little unwieldy in such a situation. Plus, how far would a round travel through walls etc. So, I'll cede a personal weapon for home security.

This is TOTAL nonsense and shows how little you know about this topic. The vast majority of SWAT teams and military use the M4 which is the military version of the AR-15. The M4 is the exact same length as most civilian versions and 1.5" shorter than some others. It is considered the gold standard for urban and room-to-room situations. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Hunting!!! Yes. Very cool. It's a good way to keep the populations down of certain species, and I'm sure you eat everything that you kill...
But why the silly military look weapons? Right tool for the job, right? Outdoor Life's list of the best hunting rifles of the last 50 years included one AR stye weapon. They said it was bulky, and difficult to carry when compared to other hunting rifles.
So it's not optimal. It's all about the look, isn't it. That's a bit silly to me.

Yet again... your ignorance shines through. Most hunting publications now espouse the AR-15 platform as an excellent choice for hunting due to its light weight, modularity, adjustable stock, and large assortment of aftermarket accessories. When you're ignorant of a particular topic, you should probably not comment or risk looking foolish.

Look, I'm being a bit glib here, but I guess my point is that much of the argument put forth on the pro side is simple rhetoric and has no real basis based on real life.

Nonsense, as illustrated by my responses.

If you live somewhere where you NEED massive guns, and rifles, and machine guns, to protect yourself; the most prudent thing to do would be move.
I might pay a little more for property, but in the last 20 years I've seen exactly ONE weapon drawn by a LEO.
Personal choice, and personal responsibility should not come at the expense of common sense.

Some people don't have the option to move. Some people live in nice areas that have been encroached upon by bad areas. Some criminals travel to nicer areas to commit crime.

If you want to talk about "unrealistic arguments", you're proving to be the master of that domain.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Why don't we tear up the 1st Amendment and have that rewritten as well.

They didn't have Twitter then.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Isurrender73

Your OP seems somewhat contradictory.

On the one hand, you want the right to bear arms because you take the need to protect oneself from the tyranny of government seriously. I respect that.

But you then go on to say that one should not be allowed a surface to air missile, even though that is the sort of weapon you take on a government with!

I agree that our governments are a little out of control, but in America we still have the election process. We just have uneducated voters.

Where do we draw the line? If 51% of the citizens want SAMS, then the citizens get SAMS. A country of the people, by the people, for the people.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Isurrender73

Why don't we tear up the 1st Amendment and have that rewritten as well.

They didn't have Twitter then.

I agree, I want my tweets protected. I think we need to be more specific.

"All speech directed against the government and politicians is protected at all times, everywhere."

See specific, keep politicians from trying to set up free speech zones.

But I also think we need to vote on Hate Speech directed at the general population. If you run for government, then you best have thick skin, because we will talk freely about you. But the citizens might be better served by being protected from Hate Speech.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Problem is that in order to do what you suggest means that the very people we are intended to have the right to bare arms against if they turn on us are the same people who will define the new constitution. I am no alright with that. The people would have no say in it and you know it if you think about it. The governments both State and Federal would usurp more power from the people than it already has.

The Constitution is not required to adapt to the times. The times are required to adapt to the constitution. It is a living document for a reason. It serves as much a valid purpose today as it did upon it's birth.