Why do Americans need guns? Rip UP the Second Amendment, problem solved.

The intention of the founding fathers and the spirit of the Constitution concerning the right to bear arms had nothing to do with hunting or sports. It was not only a *right* to bear arms, it was encouraged, it was actually necessary for most folks (living in frontier areas, dangerous times). The reason for the right to bear arms was really intended to keep the government in check, and to take "appropriate measures" should the republic become tyrannical.

Also, the viewpoint on disarming the populace is really almost impossible to enforce without becoming a police state. Are the police going to search every home, every vehicle, every root cellar, every barn, every shed? Are they to dig up your yard in case you buried a cache of weapons and ammo? Are they to investigation YOU and YOUR FRIENDS and YOUR FAMILY to catch you lying about whether or not you really have weapons? Are they to surveil you, trying to catch you with a weapon? They don't have the manpower as things are to truly protect us from every armed criminal, and if they disarm the public would they increase their manpower? Who would pay for that increase in spending?

But, let's say hypothetically IF it were actually enforced (attempted), what would result is that good, honest, wholesome people would be disarmed. Law-abiding citizens would be disarmed. Okay. But think about CRIMINALS. Criminals don't obey the law as it is. They'll hide weapons and then descend upon the law-abiding (and now disarmed) citizens who have no easy defense against an armed home invasion. I admire and respect the police. I also know that we don't have enough of them to protect all of these newly disarmed people. There simply aren't enough cops to fully protect the population. Criminals will have a field day breaking into homes and shooting everyone up ---knowing that most of the population no longer has weapons.

So, if I were a law-abiding citizen put in a situation where I KNEW criminals would not give up all their weapons, I'd be forced to break the law in order to protect my family. I'd hide a few weapons. Heck, by instituting a public disarming, YOU WOULD ENCOURAGE FOLKS WHO DON'T OWN GUNS TO SUDDENLY PROCURE THEM, in anticipation of the surge of crime.

Do you know what keeps most potential criminals in check, truly in check? It's not primarily the police or the thought of incarceration or execution. It's the thought of getting shot breaking into someone's home. It's a big unknown... "Does that family have guns or not? Hmmmmm..." Criminals and potential-criminals have to weigh whether or not a random amount of money and loot is worth getting shot over. Take away that uncertainty... and suddenly it's a WHOLE LOT EASIER for them to ponder storming your house and killing you, raping your family, killing you and making off with whatever they can carry. There are bad people out there who will refuse to give up all their weapons.

Prohibition didn't stop people from drinking. It still went on, and previously "good" people became criminals because they enjoyed drinks behind closed doors in hidden bars. Outlawing guns won't stop people from having them. They're too easy to hide. Previously "good" people will become criminals because they want to enjoy safety and security in their homes.

So, to answer the question, "Why do we need guns?" I'd say we need them because BAD PEOPLE HAVE THEM, BAD PEOPLE WILL NOT GIVE THEM UP. If bad people have guns, then good people need to have a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.

A number of misconceptions so far.

The militia is by definition citizen adults. Not the National Guard. Originally, "we the people" in accordance with the traditions of the day were "adult, white, male, property owners." The same as those of the militia. Today, we've matured and are inclusive of females and non-whites.

The militia is the adult citizens of America. Period.

A question was posed, "what can one do with just a pistol?" By judicious and skilled approach, you can obtain any military rifle or weapon system you wish to acquire, assuming your prey is carrying it.

I also carried a tomahawk in combat, and used it quite effectively a few times. I could have taken their weapons at that time, but weight slows, and prohibited me from taking them along. So what could I do with a pistol? Whatever I set out to do.

Men are much easier to get close to than wild animals. And best of all - they have habits. They follow the same routines and are unbelievably predictable.

Someone suggested that long automatics should be banned. Truthfully, you can't hit diddly squat with a rifle on automatic. You want to effect kills - you pick your shots. Nothing like a shotgun or fully automatic weapon in a small room, but it's generally a big waste of ammo otherwise.

Here's the secret: only hits count.

If you don't have the mindset for usage, you have no business with firearms. If you don't have a certain level of familiarity from usage, you'll be a liability.

You have a problem with firearms at any level, you don't need one, and I'd suggest you make good friends with someone who not only has firearms, but is skilled with their usage.

In a SHTF situation, he'll likely be the only hope you'll have of staying alive.

You. And others.

And THAT my friends is the mindset of Second Amendment Americans.

No, the second amendment was meant for Militias, not for citizens, and was designed so that Militias would always have the weaponry available to wage war against a FOREIGN Government, such as the British.

reply to post by babybunnies


WRONG! Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Source: www.usconstitution.net...

What part of the " right of the people to keep and bear Arms, ." don't you understand?
Is this concept to difficult for your learning curve?

reply to post by babybunnies


Yeah, that militia/ordinary citizen thing has been moot since the first time some yahoo brought it up in 1837.

Got ruled unconstitutional real fast.

But keep using it. Some people like vintage stupidity.

I think it's worth noting that that yahoo who brought it up was trying to get guns out of the hands of black people.

The next big attempt at gun control was in 1865. Because black people had them.

Every time some tyrant drags out gun control it's just a feel-good facade for bigotry and classism. Remember that next time you get some holier than thou jackboot urge to dictate how others should live their lives.

47 pages: got your quota filled for your "C.R".( collection requirements)"list " yet (O.P.)???

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by 46ACE

 

Sorry but we have different mindsets,there is thousands things better to do with my child then taking to a range or learn to shot.

Why? My father was a Police Officer so I was always around firearms his belief was that If me and my brother were going to be in a house with guns that he should also teach us how to handle, shoot and clean/maintain those guns safely. This is very important I think mainly because it taught my brother and I that they are not toys and most importanly this took the curiosity aspect out of it, we knew what they were and what they were capable of unlike kids that haven't been exposed to firearms that know nothing about them other than what they see on TV and are curious to see what it actually does and how it works. You and others may think this way of upbringing is dumb and thats fine but now that im in my 30's I'm gratefull for what my Dad taught my brother and I and looking back at things a bit we had some really good times just going out to the range and shooting targets and to this day a hobby of mine is target shooting also shooting in some competitions so for me I find it enjoyable because it brings back many great memories of being at the range with my Dad and Brother. If all kids knew how to safely handle firearms you would not be reading in the front page of the paper, "Boy 12 finds gun, accidentally kills friend".

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by babybunnies

 

Yeah, that militia/ordinary citizen thing has been moot since the first time some yahoo brought it up in 1837.

Got ruled unconstitutional real fast.

But keep using it. Some people like vintage stupidity.

47 pages I don't t hink we' ve heard this one yet :

2ndamendment gives us the right "bear arms" ( "left arms","right arms",.) Somebody once posted a severely twisted ( drug addled ) though: "beararms: meant carrying your "coat of arms". They'll try to put by any ridiculous thing they can twist.

America needs guns because we have pissed off the world. If you think when we get invaded that i want to fight off the enemy with a baseball bat or a Cricket paddle you are wrong. They will have guns. Why cant I?

reply to post by Aliensdoexist


I dont need to answer this ..you quoted my answer

Originally posted by SKinLaB
America needs guns because we have pissed off the world. If you think when we get invaded that i want to fight off the enemy with a baseball bat or a Cricket paddle you are wrong. They will have guns. Why cant I?

awe another great point

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by 46ACE

 

Sorry but we have different mindsets,there is thousands things better to do with my child then taking to a range or learn to shot.

Different mindsets? I'm shocked; shocked; I tell you.

That same daughter is a beautiful young married woman now (software engineer for a fortune 500 corporation.)
My Mindset is: I think you Should reassess your liberal prejuidices...

reply to post by FarArcher


you lay on to quite a claim.....good one...stay true to your self

reply to post by Aliensdoexist

Aliens, you make a very good point.

I am of the opinion that a parent's responsibility to their children is to prepare them for life as they will certainly face. That would include providing a moral anchor, education, basic skills to enable an ability to navigate a world where sometimes you may have to repair or have certain skills to get by.

I noted in combat that many young men were raised to be fearful of firearms, and firearms were not allowed in the home. Thus, they were not trained in proper firearm safety, nor skilled in their usage.

They got drafted.

Now these young men are at a distinct disadvantage. Combat entails so much more than just shooting. It entails working cover angles, quick reaction times, rapid assessment, rapid adjustments, and an ability to do many things simultaneously.

The one thing unprepared men had a problem with was their instinctive usage of their firearms, and they would have to consciously "think" about what they were doing mechanically with the firearm. Thinking in combat is distracting, and often fatal.

That one distraction alone - mechanics - was sufficient to fill many, many body bags.

So you fear or dislike firearms, and you neither want your children around them, nor want any firearms in the home. You also will likely instill in them a fear of firearms with this mindset. So now they grow into adults and have little or no experience with firearms.

Along comes a situation. A situation no one wants. But it's suddenly thrust upon everyone nonetheless.

You've just cheated your child out of at least an equal footing with others who are more 'adaptable' and familiar with those tools -- those SAME tools -- that will be used against them.

One may not like elements of life, but personal preferences should never taint your ability or responsibility to at least prepare your children with the ability to function even under unpleasant circumstances.

Originally posted by babybunnies
No, the second amendment was meant for Militias, not for citizens, and was designed so that Militias would always have the weaponry available to wage war against a FOREIGN Government, such as the British.

A clarification here, for those who may confuse similar words, perhaps having been forced to attend public schools.

"Militia" is not the same as "Military", and certainly not in today's sense, as in the armed forces of a "nation".

This notion that the Second Amendment was meant for "militias only", is a recent one, due to concerted efforts to either eliminate, or neutralize the Amendment.

Hope this doesn't come off the wrong way, because I realize many people have succumbed to this interpretation after having it repeated so often, but it is just ignorance really, being exploited by those who have bigger fish to fry.

The good news is that ignorance is at least theoretically curable!

Let's think about context. Back in 1791, how many people living in the Colonies, uh er, the "united States of America", actually thought they were "Americans"? In fact, they STILL thought of themselves as very British!!

Controversial idea? Not really, just common sense. The new "nation" over in post-revolutionary FRANCE also had briefly put aside their monarchy, but if you asked these people "who" they were, they would tell you that they were French! No, really, you can trust me, they did think of themselves this way, and still do today.

How do we know that the "American" mind-set was not at all like it is today? Well first, it hardly makes sense that what we know today could be anything like it was two centuries ago. But there is lots of old correspondence between people back then, and they still thought of themselves as very English, and many truly imagined that their new nation wasn't going to last. Perhaps some have seen the Mel Gibson movie, "Patriot", that might help give a sense of what I'm talking about. It's a good reason why even the concept of "traitor" really wasn't appropriate in most circumstances, and this was certainly recognized by everyone, including Washington.

Let us also recall how Washington feared, with good reason, that they would try and make him King! Would such an idea even enter the mind of an "American" of today? Very different mindset, different identity.

By the time the War of 1812 came, two decades later, things had "begun" to change, with some Americans actually hoping Napoleon was going to invade Britain, overthrow the monarchy, so they could all be "one" again. So, an American "identity" was finally coalescing, and yet the old yearning was still there in some ways. And there was outrage over the impressment of sailors, although many in the new nation STILL retained allegiance to Britain, even during this new war of 1812! In fact, they thought that THEY were the "patriots", not the traitors.

WHY does any of this mean anything when it comes to some old Amendment? Because the very notion of the mother country being "foreign" would have been utterly ABSURD to people living at that time.

READ the writings of the founders of America if you would know their thoughts, which ALSO form a context for what to make of this Amendment of controversy today. You will find that they were very clear in identifying why arms were necessary, and for whom they were most likely to be used against: Their own potentially tyrannical government. Because that's precisely what the British really were to these primarily English people of 200 years ago, living in "the Colonies". The "British" were not a "foreign" nation, they could perhaps be better understood by a modern American as sort of like the federal government is today, but this might only be understood by those who retain the notion of states deserving the primary allegiance.

Not enough? Go yet a bit further! Let's think somewhere in the neighborhood of "four-score-and-twenty"...

Ever hear of the War for Southern Independence? No? How about the Civil War? Yeah. Well, if you would dare read the writings of people leading up to this conflict, you would find, yet again, exactly what these people thought.

As Southerners know, they had every right to secede from what was supposed to be a VOLUNTARY "union". As most Southerners "should" know, it wasn't about slavery primarily, there were various factors. But the biggest factor of all wasn't in the South. He was sitting in the White House!

Known as the First American Tyrant by many Southerners, there is a case to be made here, based on Lincoln's actions, which to today's brainwashed product of public school indoctrination probably sounds wonderful, "preserve the union", but back then such a thing sounded literally "tyrannical".

No, I'm not trying to get the South riled up (I'm sure She shall rise again!), but that's another story.

I hope that any fair-minded person can see the many reasons that point to a far different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment than is currently being passed off.

Stick to the traditional interpretation, the one held for a long time, the one held by those who had every reason to understand it best.

And take your modern, silly "plausible" interpretations, and deposit them accordingly in your local trash bin.

JR

I'm truely grateful that my Scottish and English ancestors came across the Pond and fought their cousins and beat them, and we became the wonderful and "mostly " free country we are today.

I am also grateful to have the "God Given Right" to self determination, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the freedom to arm myself and protect myself and family as I see fit.

These are "God Given Rights" not government given rights. We are "Free Men" not subjects and our rights are not bestowed by the government or other men, they are our "Birth Right".

I appreciate that some people don't want any violence or gun crime in the world, but the sad reality is that we do have it. Banning any weapon is not going to stop the violence. Prohibition does not work as proven over and over.

I am also grateful because Santa has the elves hard at work building me a new Rock Island Tactical 1911 A .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol for Christmas.

Thank God for Elves!!!

if you talk about crime , look at the intent/reason, not the tools as to HOW the crime was made but WHY, .

secondly if you talk about crime,

homicides contain a majority of cases (+70%) without a firearm even used,

thirdly , i suggest you go hunting in the woods and not the local mart or snack bar,

you might even be supriced as to how little of your own time goes to gathering food the natural way,

reply to post by 46ACE

Wow ,you are shocked ? deeply shocked? .Let me clarify you again : there is thousands things better to do with my child then taking to a range or learn to shot. Is this is shocking you i can presume that you are shocked at least 100 times a day .I dont like any kind of guns ,i can't imagine me killing someone, i was raised that way , i believe in my believings.What is shocking here ?

reply to post by xavi1000


tell that to your child while your wife is being raped and you shot in the head while he/she is forced to watch ,

or

tell that to your wife while your shot in the head and shes force to watch him/her being raped

or

keep that in mind while your child is shot in the head and your wife is raped and your forced to watch ,

three simple every day scenarios,

everyday

then again ,

just because you follow the law does not mean everyone else does.

reply to post by zerbot565

False.
This scenarios are not everyday scenarios in Europe . Are they in US? I don't think so.