99.9999999% of Assault Weapons are not on the "street". They are on private property!

Originally posted by Julie Washington

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Julie Washington


On the street... in the home... didn't matter to the 20 little angels murdered did it?

Are you telling me you cant tell the diffrence? All you have is to come in here and put 20 dead children im my face as if myself and other, defending rights, are culpable. Thats like college freshman stuff.

Yes, I can tell the difference.

I support the 2nd amendment to bear arms.

I do not support bearing any kind of assualt weapon as that is not what the foundation and "spirit" of the right was written.

To bear arms for defense. Assault weapons are not defensive weapons they are offensive weapons.

The 2nd Amendment reads, " 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."


Militia,
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

The 2nd amendment was not for defence. It was written for the people to have the ability to overthrow tyrannical governments. What good is a muzzle loaded rifle toe to toe with a simi or automatic weapon? The 2nd amendment was written to make the people equal to the government.

Thomas Jefferson Quote "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by Julie Washington

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Julie Washington


On the street... in the home... didn't matter to the 20 little angels murdered did it?

Are you telling me you cant tell the diffrence? All you have is to come in here and put 20 dead children im my face as if myself and other, defending rights, are culpable. Thats like college freshman stuff.

Yes, I can tell the difference.

I support the 2nd amendment to bear arms.

I do not support bearing any kind of assualt weapon as that is not what the foundation and "spirit" of the right was written.

To bear arms for defense. Assault weapons are not defensive weapons they are offensive weapons.

The 2nd Amendment reads, " 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."


Militia,
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

The 2nd amendment was not for defence. It was written for the people to have the ability to overthrow tyrannical governments. What good is a muzzle loaded rifle toe to toe with a simi or automatic weapon? The 2nd amendment was written to make the people equal to the government.

Thomas Jefferson Quote "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Well I suggest you take your semi automatic weapon and try to overthrow our current tyrannical government and see how far that gets you.

The right to bear arms is outdated and is prime for another amendment.

Originally posted by Julie Washington

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by Julie Washington

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Julie Washington


On the street... in the home... didn't matter to the 20 little angels murdered did it?

Are you telling me you cant tell the diffrence? All you have is to come in here and put 20 dead children im my face as if myself and other, defending rights, are culpable. Thats like college freshman stuff.

Yes, I can tell the difference.

I support the 2nd amendment to bear arms.

I do not support bearing any kind of assualt weapon as that is not what the foundation and "spirit" of the right was written.

To bear arms for defense. Assault weapons are not defensive weapons they are offensive weapons.

The 2nd Amendment reads, " 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."


Militia,
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

The 2nd amendment was not for defence. It was written for the people to have the ability to overthrow tyrannical governments. What good is a muzzle loaded rifle toe to toe with a simi or automatic weapon? The 2nd amendment was written to make the people equal to the government.

Thomas Jefferson Quote "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Well I suggest you take your semi automatic weapon and try to overthrow our current tyrannical government and see how far that gets you.

The right to bear arms is outdated and is prime for another amendment.

Im not advicating the over throwing of our government. Im only telling you what the 2nd amendment was written for. The right to bear arms is not outdated and never will be. What dont you people understand? drugs are outlawed yet there on the streets, killing is outlawed yet people kill. "gun free zones" are in place yet people enter and kill with guns. Laws dont work, laws only work on law abiding citzens. Please note that all recent massacres have accrued in gun free zones. That should tell you something.

reply to post by Julie Washington


so our goverment can bear any arms they want, but the people do not get the ability to bear those same arms. do u think if the 2nd amendment was written today right now, instead of 200 plus years ago they would have written it any different? or because we have better technology they would have given the goverment the upper-hand?

reply to post by DocHolidaze
I wounder if it would include the nuke, a M1A3 thebrigade.thechive.com... or of all things the right to have your own CVN, www.public.navy.mil... if you had the means to buy them

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by Julie Washington

 

so our goverment can bear any arms they want, but the people do not get the ability to bear those same arms. do u think if the 2nd amendment was written today right now, instead of 200 plus years ago they would have written it any different? or because we have better technology they would have given the goverment the upper-hand?

Yes.

They would have written it different.

The current rule was debated and changed many times.

It can be changed and debated again.

The Australian experience: the 'assault' term in general was extended to imply all self-loading rapid fire weapons including pump action shotguns. Hand guns (pistols) have always been subject to much more stringent laws. Single shot and bolt action weapons were excluded provided the applicant for a permit to possess such a weapon could show a need for it such as being a member of a recognized shooting club, farmers etc. (shooting clubs had a rush on membership applications of course)

'Home Defense' is not a valid reason and any mention of such intended use is likely to see you struck off the list of eligible owners permanently. All weapons you can now legally own and associated ammo need to be stored in approved secure lockers within the home and those storage provisions are subject to random inspections (if any of your legal weapons are found unsecured you lose your permit and all weapons are confiscated) . If you shoot competitively eg skeet, trap, target etc you can have your weapons stored in the club's secure storage facility.

Being found in possession of a banned weapon past the declared amnesty period for surrendering them will get you 10 years in the lockup at least.

This country is better off for the harder line on such weapons - the American experience may differ at least for a generation or more after any legislation changes but, to us outsiders, it's blatantly obvious that something there has to change and the sooner, the better. Americans will need to work out how they'll deal with it in their own way once enough citizens acknowledge the need for change.

And yes I've heard all the pro-gun arguments (from my own fellow citizens a decade ago)

Originally posted by Julie Washington

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by Julie Washington

 

so our goverment can bear any arms they want, but the people do not get the ability to bear those same arms. do u think if the 2nd amendment was written today right now, instead of 200 plus years ago they would have written it any different? or because we have better technology they would have given the goverment the upper-hand?

Yes.

They would have written it different.

The current rule was debated and changed many times.

It can be changed and debated again.

edit on 19-12-2012 by Julie Washington because: (no reason given)

If the 2nd amendment is changed then so goes the rest of the amendments. What stops the Corrupt congress from taking everything away? The constitution was written with the intent of our rights given to us by our creator. You let man change these rights, you set up a constitution of rights given to us by our government. What the government gives, they can as well take.

Yes there has been amendments to the constitution written by man, but these amendments our based on the original constitution that gives us our Natural Law, and rights, by our creator.

My point is remove our god given rights under the constitution and you set up a government that can take away any amendment, “right” , as they see fit.

we will see what they plan some time to day, the Obama group is to release their gun ban/ grab policy plan today. think it might be like the UK or ours friends down under type of ban /law. here is the link news.yahoo.com... and here is the link to the horse's mouth www.whitehouse.gov...

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by Julie Washington

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by Julie Washington

 

so our goverment can bear any arms they want, but the people do not get the ability to bear those same arms. do u think if the 2nd amendment was written today right now, instead of 200 plus years ago they would have written it any different? or because we have better technology they would have given the goverment the upper-hand?

Yes.

They would have written it different.

The current rule was debated and changed many times.

It can be changed and debated again.

edit on 19-12-2012 by Julie Washington because: (no reason given)

If the 2nd amendment is changed then so goes the rest of the amendments. What stops the Corrupt congress from taking everything away? The constitution was written with the intent of our rights given to us by our creator. You let man change these rights, you set up a constitution of rights given to us by our government. What the government gives, they can as well take.

Yes there has been amendments to the constitution written by man, but these amendments our based on the original constitution that gives us our Natural Law, and rights, by our creator.

My point is remove our god given rights under the constitution and you set up a government that can take away any amendment, “right” , as they see fit.

edit on 19-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

"original constitution that gives us our Natural Law, and rights, by our creator."

Gives us rights by our creator? Where did you come up with that?

There's a reason why the 2nd Amendment is not 9th or 10th....it was envisioned that the citizens of this nation would have a balance against a tyrannical government should it come to that.

Now none of us have any illusions that the assault rifle will do much good against our Government, however, the common police officer or soldier attempting to take rights from any individual American would give good pause before entering any home should Americans choose to resist. This is why assault rifles and other "high powered" guns (they're not btw) are important to the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.

Should they call for confiscations or bans, I would be willing to bet that less than 5% of the armed U.S. population complies. I won't.

Originally posted by Julie Washington

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by Julie Washington

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by Julie Washington

 

so our goverment can bear any arms they want, but the people do not get the ability to bear those same arms. do u think if the 2nd amendment was written today right now, instead of 200 plus years ago they would have written it any different? or because we have better technology they would have given the goverment the upper-hand?

Yes.

They would have written it different.

The current rule was debated and changed many times.

It can be changed and debated again.

edit on 19-12-2012 by Julie Washington because: (no reason given)

If the 2nd amendment is changed then so goes the rest of the amendments. What stops the Corrupt congress from taking everything away? The constitution was written with the intent of our rights given to us by our creator. You let man change these rights, you set up a constitution of rights given to us by our government. What the government gives, they can as well take.

Yes there has been amendments to the constitution written by man, but these amendments our based on the original constitution that gives us our Natural Law, and rights, by our creator.

My point is remove our god given rights under the constitution and you set up a government that can take away any amendment, “right” , as they see fit.

edit on 19-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

"original constitution that gives us our Natural Law, and rights, by our creator."

Gives us rights by our creator? Where did you come up with that?

The Constitution-
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"

you must have never read the constitution. So you sit here arguing about something you know nothing about. This is the problem with america today. People think they know what there talking about but have no idea.

Originally posted by Logarock
This line keeps getting one liner super status on the TV and radio......that assault weapons have no place out on the "street". Street being one of those vague rhetorical catch alls that the mind benders use. A phrase taken from the slang of our culture and used to undermine the more serious philosophies that are the foundations for the 2nd amendment.

You will notice the news mechine likes to drag out voices with some qualifications like....former NRA member in good standing, war vets, former this and that, ect ect.....they use them for sound bites to support, by using these terms like "street", to mean "home" and suggest that not only do assult weapon owners not need these guns but that they are irresponsible for having them......ahhh out on the "street" (which means home in news speak) as well.

I say again.....99.9999999% of all assault weapons are in homes. Yours.

I don't own a gun. Don't need one. Not with today's fat and lazy police officer! I'm just gonna beat his @ss and take his. That's my plan.

On the flip side, that house you THINK is yours, and the land that it sits on....actually belongs to the bank.

Originally posted by bekod
we will see what they plan some time to day, the Obama group is to release their gun ban/ grab policy plan today. think it might be like the UK or ours friends down under type of ban /law. here is the link news.yahoo.com... and here is the link to the horse's mouth www.whitehouse.gov...

edit on 19-12-2012 by bekod because: line edditing added link

Obama called them "combat" weapons today. I called them combat weapons yesterday. This indicates that as things heat up all this assault talk will start becoming combat talk and the POTUS may have to get into the subject the fear of government communicated in the bill of rights and expressed clearly in several of the amendments.

Originally posted by BlowinSmoke

Originally posted by Logarock
This line keeps getting one liner super status on the TV and radio......that assault weapons have no place out on the "street". Street being one of those vague rhetorical catch alls that the mind benders use. A phrase taken from the slang of our culture and used to undermine the more serious philosophies that are the foundations for the 2nd amendment.

You will notice the news mechine likes to drag out voices with some qualifications like....former NRA member in good standing, war vets, former this and that, ect ect.....they use them for sound bites to support, by using these terms like "street", to mean "home" and suggest that not only do assult weapon owners not need these guns but that they are irresponsible for having them......ahhh out on the "street" (which means home in news speak) as well.

I say again.....99.9999999% of all assault weapons are in homes. Yours.

My motto has always been "help the cops by helping yourself. Join the struggle, buy a weapon".
I don't own a gun. Don't need one. Not with today's fat and lazy police officer! I'm just gonna beat his @ss and take his. That's my plan.

On the flip side, that house you THINK is yours, and the land that it sits on....actually belongs to the bank.

reply to post by seabag


The guns used in the school massacre were also in the home and not on the streets.

didnt make a diffeence.

ban every gun accept handguns!

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by seabag

 

The guns used in the school massacre were also in the home and not on the streets.

didnt make a diffeence.

ban every gun accept handguns!

....And we are to use the hand guns for hunting bear and dear? Or are you a tree-hugger who doesn't believe in hunting...?

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by Logarock
This line keeps getting one liner super status on the TV and radio......that assault weapons have no place out on the "street". Street being one of those vague rhetorical catch alls that the mind benders use. A phrase taken from the slang of our culture and used to undermine the more serious philosophies that are the foundations for the 2nd amendment.

You will notice the news mechine likes to drag out voices with some qualifications like....former NRA member in good standing, war vets, former this and that, ect ect.....they use them for sound bites to support, by using these terms like "street", to mean "home" and suggest that not only do assult weapon owners not need these guns but that they are irresponsible for having them......ahhh out on the "street" (which means home in news speak) as well.

I say again.....99.9999999% of all assault weapons are in homes.

Yours.

your playing into there game calling them "assault weapons." assault weapons are already banned

edit on 18-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

Last time I checked, semi-automatic assault rifles are legal again; this happened in 2004. Or are you claiming semi-automatic assault rifles aren't assault rifles because they aren't automatics?

As for the OP, the phrase "in the streets" means readily available to the public. Most street drugs are not on the street either, but in people's houses. So what's your point really? But hey, play semanticist all you want.

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by Julie Washington

 

so our goverment can bear any arms they want, but the people do not get the ability to bear those same arms. do u think if the 2nd amendment was written today right now, instead of 200 plus years ago they would have written it any different? or because we have better technology they would have given the goverment the upper-hand?

We have been hearing this line in one form or another "our fathers didnt have this in mind ect ect". These are badly schooled or liers.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by Logarock
This line keeps getting one liner super status on the TV and radio......that assault weapons have no place out on the "street". Street being one of those vague rhetorical catch alls that the mind benders use. A phrase taken from the slang of our culture and used to undermine the more serious philosophies that are the foundations for the 2nd amendment.

You will notice the news mechine likes to drag out voices with some qualifications like....former NRA member in good standing, war vets, former this and that, ect ect.....they use them for sound bites to support, by using these terms like "street", to mean "home" and suggest that not only do assult weapon owners not need these guns but that they are irresponsible for having them......ahhh out on the "street" (which means home in news speak) as well.

I say again.....99.9999999% of all assault weapons are in homes.

Yours.

your playing into there game calling them "assault weapons." assault weapons are already banned

edit on 18-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

Last time I checked, semi-automatic assault rifles are legal again; this happened in 2004. Or are you claiming semi-automatic assault rifles aren't assault rifles because they aren't automatics?

As for the OP, the phrase "in the streets" means readily available to the public. Most street drugs are not on the street either, but in people's houses. So what's your point really? But hey, play semanticist all you want.

You are playing semanticist here. Like the press that for years has liked to show piles of weapons next to piles of drugs and cash taken in raids. Thats what the term street is trying to do here. And/or the POTUS only knows about guns as they relate to crime and drugs over in Chi Town.

Many dont know that you could still buy assault weapons durring the ban. There were a number of them you could still buy right over the counter at the local gun store. And the ban didnt stop the gang land shoot outs "out on the streets".