Give up your guns to prevent another 9/11

There has been a lot of controversy about Bush violating the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution in order to catch terrorists. If you are talking to Al Queda, Bush wants to know. The first 48 hours he doesn't need a warrant by law, after that, he says he still doesn't need a warrant because he is trying to prevent another 9/11.

Let's say that Bush needed to curb gun ownership, to prevent another 9/11. The US government needs to tweak the Second Amendment so the terrorists won't win. Would that be acceptable?

I will never lay down my arms because the president or who ever say so. Especially not the snake pit (UN). I am a vet and damn proud of my service and there is no way I will ever surrneder that one right to keep and bear arms. No chance, No way ,No how, NOT NEVER.

Originally posted by curme
There has been a lot of controversy about Bush violating the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution in order to catch terrorists. If you are talking to Al Queda, Bush wants to know. The first 48 hours he doesn't need a warrant by law, after that, he says he still doesn't need a warrant because he is trying to prevent another 9/11.

Let's say that Bush needed to curb gun ownership, to prevent another 9/11. The US government needs to tweak the Second Amendment so the terrorists won't win. Would that be acceptable?

Of course not. Hell, his violation of the fourth amendment is too far.

Tampering with any amendment should be a federal crime. And of course terrorism is the least of my worries. rather live with the threat of another bombing than the threat of a police state ruled by Christian Nutjobs who have the legal authority to peek in my house and listen to my private conversations.

ANY violation of civil rights, from the first amendment to the last, should be strictly forbidden.

The Second Amendment is there so we can protect ourselves from the government. Not terrorists. That's also why I should be allowed to own assault rifles. I can't wait for some skinny lib puke to come to my door to take them...

Originally posted by curme

The US government needs to tweak the Second Amendment so the terrorists won't win. Would that be acceptable?

Come on, Curme...you say that like it is still honored. They got around the second early in the game.


Of course, the Supreme Court won’t hear a 2nd amendment case, saying that the Miller case in 1934(?) said it all. Miller lost, and this is all that pro victim disarmament proponents care about. However, just like with most other issues, they have failed to scratch the surface. In Miller, the SC asked if the sawed off shotgun Miller had was of military usefulness. The prosecution said no and the defense agreed. Because the 2nd applies to militia, the SC in Miller correctly interpreted the 2nd to protect any weapon of military usefulness and based on the presented evidence upheld Miller’s conviction. What the defense did not enter as evidence was the fact that short barreled shotguns had been used by US military services in WWI and therefore are indeed protected as the court defined protected.

So, every time we submit to a background check, registration, NFA compliance, ext. for a military grade weapon, we go against the 2nd, the only SC ruling on the 2nd, and we do so voluntarily.

Supreme Court is very smart. The question was answered in Miller correctly weather or not we care to enforce its ruling.

Kinda reminds me of the end of the movie, Left Behind III, when the President asks his people what they should do, and the people tell him, don't you remember? we gave all our weapons up so you could secure this nation, Now those people that you gave the weapons to are using them on us.

I just think it's strange how some people pick-and-choose what parts of the Constitution is ok to violate. I'm old skool, I think none of it should be violated. If we do, to paraphrase GW Bush, then the terrorists win.

I am okay with the prez violating that amendment. If it will help prevent another 9\11 tap my phones Im ok with it.

but... try to take my guns, and you'l get a .40 cal hollowpoint in the forehead.

[edit on 2-11-2006 by Ford Farmer]

Ford Farmer, even though you are being sarcastic that is actually how I feel...I say amen to that. Tap my phones, go ahead..I have nothing to hide. Touch my guns, BAM!!

Good to see your priorities are right.

WE want our guns to remain FREE
But please, take away my freedom of privacy that you can have.

Originally posted by curme
Let's say that Bush needed to curb gun ownership, to prevent another 9/11. The US government needs to tweak the Second Amendment so the terrorists won't win. Would that be acceptable?

What do guns (personal firearms) have to do with weapons of mass destruction? With all due respect, this question makes no sense.

Tweak the 2nd ammendment? NO.

I will now defer to founding father Benjaman Franklin to better answer your question:

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"




[edit on 1/20/07 by EastCoastKid]

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" - Benjamin Franklin

I accidentally double-posted. Apologies.

This quote does bear repeating, tho; for anyone unfamiliar with the thinking of our much wiser founding fathers.



[edit on 1/20/07 by EastCoastKid]

[edit on 1/20/07 by EastCoastKid]