The Second Amendment is a Relic - Its Purpose is Long Past.

The problem about those who think "oh they won't get MY guns", or "over my cold dead body" etc etc, is that "ok, thts fine with them", them meaning tptb, leos, soldiers, whoever the government sends to take them.

Second, I think you need to do some history study if you believe this. Specifically Nazi history. In the beginning the NAzis were embraced in many areas and in new countries. Once they were their and established, things began to change, and not over night. It was very gradual.

Political strategists and social engineers working in government offices know this and will apply it. you will see a series of gradual changes.

First they put a 10 year ban on assualt guns. it expired on 2004. so most likely they will just reenact it...permanently. then they will slowly add to the list of guns and ammo until the only gun you can have shoots paintball or water.

The point is this, there will be no INSTANT MASSIVE change, that people will instantly ban together over and take to the streets. every account of resistance will have media spins as "homegrown terrorism", or "terrorist gun nut with large cache of guns, enough ammo to kill a whole town was apprehended today". the revolution may be televised but it damn sure won't be spun that way.

i would dare say a majority of gun owners are moral law abiding citizens. so as soon as a law gets passed that makes what they're doing illegal they'll just turn it in. Are you going to be the only guy in 10 blocks shooting back? are you willing to die over that?

to be clear i'm not anti-gun, i just [unfortunately] don't see US citizens banding together and fighting back. The government while ineffecient, is not stupid, theyve had many history lessons to study. They know how to do this.

It seems to me the people have lost their voice in government.

[taken from an email, many of you may have seen it]

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVENT SEEN THIS, GREAT FOOD FOR THOUGHT....




Interesting slant on things
AMERICA'S HUNTERS ---
Pretty Amazing!

The world's largest army...America 's hunters!
I had never thought about
this...

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a
handful of states and
arrived at a striking
conclusion:


There were over 600,000 hunters
this season in the state of Wisconsin ..
Allow me to restate that number:
600,000

Over the last several months,
Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in
the world.

More men under arms than in Iran .

More than France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to
the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin , to hunt with
firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and
Michigan's 700,000 hunters,
all of whom have now returned home safely.
Toss in a quarter million hunters
in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the
hunters of those four states alone
would comprise the largest army in the world.
And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states.
It's millions more.

The point?

America will forever be safe
from foreign invasion with that
kind of home-grown firepower.


Hunting...
it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national
security.

***************************************
That's why all enemies,
foreign and domestic,
want to see us
disarmed.

Food for thought,
when next we consider gun control.

Overall it's true,
so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters
don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question
would still remain...
What army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens???

(IF YOU AGREE, AS I DO, PASS IT ON, I FEEL GOOD THAT I HAVE AN ARMY OF MILLIONS WHO WOULD PROTECT OUR LAND AND I SURE DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TAKING CONTROL OF THE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS)

For the sake of our freedom,
don't ever allow gun control
or confiscation of guns. ******************** "There are none so blind as those who REFUSE to see".....

Hey everyone quit calling Brits LIMEYWe still have friends over there and you might piss of the SAS.We do disagree but not with that sort of garbage.

Originally posted by xedocodex
I hear people say all the time that they will only hand over their guns from their cold dead hands, that's fine with me, let's start that process.

So you want to murder honest law abiding gun owners that want to keep their right to own a firearm.

Who's the fanatic now?

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
I see you still don't understand by the "automatic" statement just say high capacity rifles instead.
No, we need all of our magazines,ammo and guns.so what I saw in Iraq,Korea,and any other warzone I know of WILL NOT HAPPEN TO MY COUNTRY.Or for that matter to pretty young girls like you. Seeing kids get killed enrages me and I have a pathological reaction to it.
I need every weapon I can afford and legally have that I know how to use to do it right.If the guns you mention are no longer in circulation,anyone can to us as they please and it I fear, will destroy us.No more make up,cell phones, elaborate foods, nice clothes or public gatherings,just what the latest tyrant demands.
On a personal level.My neighbor 2 doors down in an apartment complex was murdered by 6 Cholos who were so bold the kicked in the door shot him and walked to their cars joking about it.I could have easily killed them all but not without bullet over penetration in a populated area. It took the police 20 minutes to get there.
Thats what I eventually got a shotgun for.
I live in Colorado,it isn't that bad here,but it happened so there you go.

So, you're saying that, in a country where everyone has guns a group of people kicked their way into a man's house, completely undeterred by the possibility it might be full of guns, and shot him, with a gun, and you had a super high powered gun and failed to prevent it or, in fact, "kill them all" (which would have totally helped obviously) because it was too overpowered... And your argument was ... Everyone needs automatic weapons, guns are essential for our safety etc?

A compelling argument indeed, sir...

Btw being in the army at some point doesn't mean your opinion on guns counts for anything more than anyone else's.. I hate this, it comes up all the time, people dropping in they did some service like it matters, it doesn't... I'm sorry if you had some bad experiences Corporal Flashback but you were in a war zone (and signed on the line and took the paycheck right?)... America is not a war zone and is never likely to be...

Personally I don't think it's realistic to disarm americans, and why should they anyway? Hell, I'd own a gun if I could, I'd own a whole armoury, but that's because I like shooting guns. I wouldnt be deluded into thinking that they'd protect me from doodly squat though, because the facts just don't support it... You can try and spin it whatever way you like but it's BS... But, hey, if you want to keep your guns because you like them and they make you FEEL safe then JUST SAY SO!!

Also, I live in a country where guns are highly restricted and i'd like to set the record straight: yes, we do still have make up and 'cell phones' and elaborate food (?) and we can gather in public quite freely, and in private, without the fear of having my door kicked in by heavily armed lunatics trying to shoot me in the face....

Originally posted by Julie Washington

"There is thus no constitutional protection whatsoever for the semiautomatic rifle that killed the kids in Newtown."

The Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago. Its purpose is long past. As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.

Source

This is an excellent article the explains the reasons the 2nd amendment was created, and how it's been used in the SCOTUS.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the new Federal Government established in 1789 from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a Federal standing army. It was a concern that was relevant perhaps for a few years around the birth of the country. It is irrelevant today. Americans do not rely on state militias in 2012 for our freedom from the federal government

Now is the time to establish new gun control laws and perhaps an all out ban on all automatic and semi automatic weapons.

I'm only going to comment on this thread one time. You don't get it. Turn off your TV and get off the couch.You have no clue what is happening in the uSA.
You are only right where it says: Americans do not rely on state militias in 2012 for our freedom from the federal government. US citizens have rolled over on their backs and gave up. The federal gov was never meant to rule over the people. We have no freedom from the federal government now. Haven't you seen the stats on what happens when a dictator takes away the citizens guns?

One item where you are mistaken. US citizens are not Americans. US citizens are members/subjects of a foreign-owned , bankrupt corporation ---United States Inc. usavsus.info...

Aside from that.....we need to abolish Gun Free Zones. Can't you see where the shootings occur? People like you need to move to gun free zones. That way you can have it proved, to yourself, the absolute stupidity of these zones. Of course, you'll no longer be alive. Your corpse will be found with a phone in it's hand, instead of a gun, to call 911. Why don't you put your address up here and advertise that you are a gun free zone?

reply to post by Julie Washington


What would someone who is brought from the past in a time machine say to this?
Isn't erasing history dangerous?
Limbo

OH Julie thanks for supporting the Totalitarian One World Govt TPTB have planned for us. You are such a great cheerleader. The NWO loves you and cherishes your support of them. You cheerleaders for the One World Govt are so busy today getting the rest of us in line.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


The whole of the UK has no second amendment, has outlawed handguns, and has one of the LOWEST gun death rates(purposeful adn accidental) in the civilized world at .25 per 100,000 people in 2011!!!!

The same thing is happening with the gun lobby that happened to the cigarette lobby. Denial that they are the problem. The blame everything and everyone else..

The NRA needs to do tobacco lobby style clean up and be sued for the money to take the excess guns off the streets and residences, and do anti-gun violence campaigns. The NRA and militias as well as most gun lobbys seem to be little more than a proxy for white supremist groups anyway..

reply to post by Milkflavour


Super high powered gun? I want AUTOMATIC WEAPONS? Evidently my opinion is superior to yours based on knowledge that I received from my being raised amongst all types of firearms.My brother had an AR 15 in the 70s.I always thought the bullet was too small and I'm right about that too.But I suppose you wouldn't know that or you would be appropriately versed in the subject to be able to delineate the difference between semi-auto and full auto.But that is the usual error novice debaters make.And how you are NOW labelled.On the whole items you won't have
I was speaking English (after a fashion to you) when I was depicting a SCENARIO after the fact ,a "What IF" I am indeed aware what you have.... and don't.
My PTSD shows up when I am aggressively confronted or loud noises occur.
A flashback is a completely different animal,but you wouldn't know that,never having researched before speaking much less know about combat.
The violence I witnessed would very well have escalated.Being in England I doubt you will understand it but we don't actually kill every chance we get.If indeed I had flashbacks I wouldn't be allowed nor would I want to have guns.
You watch too many movies and TV and think "Theres AMERICA for you!
You and all the rest of your ILK are indeed reacting to a nut,not me,I wasn't asked by the media.A crazy screwed up boy who's mom evidently was trying to control by herself with bad judgement.Read that CRAZY.You seem to have some grasp,I hope I have cleared up any misconceptions.
Its an abberration,one incident from a population of MILLIONS far more than you have where you are.
I doubt, with as many different races we have here, any of us would fall into your definitions.
The most remote hillbillys in the country are folksy and amiable.Kindly stop informing me of who I am,how I should act and your insults to my way of life.

reply to post by sensible1


Ahhh see, now you're going to get "yeah but they have really bad *insert crime here* crime" like that's relevant and. It just deflecting the point...

And also, "there's lots of knife crime, what are we going to do? BAN KNIVES? Hur Hur Hur..."

Completely missing the point that we prepare and eat our meals with knives... And.. Last time I checked, you can't prepare and eat a meal with an assault rifle...

Or my personal favourite "well, if you ban guns they'll just pick up a rock..... A fully automatic, high capacity rock with the capability to kill somewhere close to fifty people in matter of a few moments"

(ok I changed the last one a bit but.... You know...)

Of course, we have the right to bear arms, but what constitutes those arms?

Muskets and bayonets have given way over the years to more accurate and deadly forms of tissue penetrating weapons. If the U.S. Constitution or any state constitution does not restrict certain firearms that one can bear, then so be it.

Personally, I think this would the perfect opportunity for the rise of non-lethal personal protection devices. Think of the military's weapon that creates intense pain, such as feeling like your are burning. Or, think Star Trek phasers.

The time has come for personal non-lethal energy weapons.

Oooohhhkaaay....

I could have easily killed them all but not without bullet over penetration in a populated area.

1) That's what gave me the impression you were talking about high powered rifles... And you must have been... Having been in the British army myself for a good while I do have some experience with rifles and i have to say, I wouldn't be TOO concerned about the 7.62 round from an SA80 penetrating someone's external house wall and killing them. The SA80 is designed to engage targets (optimistically) at about 600yds and is designed to maim as opposed to kill (takes more people to patch someone than to leave them for dead... See.. That's thinking US, pay attention) and I would say that, whilst its not a high power rifle compared to some, I would say it was high power enough for a civvy..

2) I clearly know the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic,
If I didn't I'd have failed every APWT I ever did and wouldn't have got out of basic..

3) ditto with 'combat' (also, iraq wouldn't have been half as bad of you yanks weren't stacking up POW's and interfering with them )

4) the area I live in is very culturally diverse actually, one of the most culturally diverse populations outside of the Capital... Just on my street I have people from Bangladesh, Pakistan, China, Korea, and Poland (and that's the one's I know of, theres plenty of my neighbours I don't know)...
Though I'm not sure what that's got to do with anything...

5) I was calling you corporal flashback as a leg-pull mate, what with your diatribe on 'the things I've seen'... kind of brought Rambo to mind... Which brings me onto 6

6) I don't watch Tv and 'movies' anymore mate, I got rid of my tv ages ago, it's an idiot box and I have nothing but distain for it

7)I wasn't actually arguing to take your precious bang bang off you,
In fact, if you'd read it instead of having a knee-jerk reaction you'd see I actually said (on taking your boom sticks away) "why should they?"
And clearly stated i'd own a gun myself.... I don't object to it,
I just object to the fallacious and disingenuous statements about how guns are keeping everyone so safe, which is obviously BS based on the scenario YOU described about the guy getting shot in the face in his own front room... Guns didn't act as a deterrent, they didn't prevent it âñd they couldn't even avenge it (because yours was too high powered to be shooting off in the street) and, in fact, the only involvement they had was shooting the poor guy in his face whilst he was trying to enjoy a spot of tea... So... Yeah....

I hope that covers everything....


Edit: oh and you may not kill everything every opportunity you get but that seems, judging by the quote at the top of this post, due to a concern about collateral damage (surprisingly, from an American) rather than any concern about actually killing 'the baddies'

The only absolute 100% way to fix any of this is open communication.We don't do that and of that I too am guilty,because opinion became fact a long time ago here in America.
The truth is beyond obscure.

Umm hey squaddie ,the SA80 IS .223 (requiring multiple hits way too often)your SLR or FAL is.762
And my hackles are up because of what is being stated from others in the Fatherland.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


Mate, I'm sorry but the SA80 is 7.62 NATO...

And I don't mean to be insulting, I'm just a tad abrasive...

Edit: and it's not designed to kill, it's designed to take someone out of the firefight so someone else has to fix him up... Takes out two combatants instead of one... Thats addressing the multiple hits thing...


Edited for apology!

Sorry mate, I just re-read what I wrote and you're right, it's not 7.62 you're right, I stand corrected and leave my original statement for reference...


Also, I'm not arguing that it's not a POS because it is... No matter how much I cleaned the gas parts it ALWAYS stopped!

reply to post by Milkflavour

I did fear for you guys during that time and that SUSAT ugh.It's ok to be abrasive....that is how I always talk.I'm crude sometimes as well but decorum on these boards is demanded.
I prefer a nice hard 7.62 myself if they're wearing armor you can knock them down so you can have approach time.
My preference of weapon would be a knife,that way you know he's down.

and since I double posted I can but say.......opps.

Originally posted by Julie Washington

"There is thus no constitutional protection whatsoever for the semiautomatic rifle that killed the kids in Newtown."

The Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago. Its purpose is long past. As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.

Source

This is an excellent article the explains the reasons the 2nd amendment was created, and how it's been used in the SCOTUS.

The purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the new Federal Government established in 1789 from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a Federal standing army. It was a concern that was relevant perhaps for a few years around the birth of the country. It is irrelevant today. Americans do not rely on state militias in 2012 for our freedom from the federal government

Now is the time to establish new gun control laws and perhaps an all out ban on all automatic and semi automatic weapons.

Troll alert...nobody is that clueless


Bill

reply to post by Camperguy

Oh YES they are, I read some guy ON THIS BOARD who said he would rather die than harm another human being who was attacking him.
These people are so into their own heads.....from fear of guns and those owning them,it would appear,that they will support ANY effort and go to any length.
Also many Y gens are ALOT like this. As are most 20 and below aged people.Media has them and is playing their heads like bongos to a beat they want them to dance to.

reply to post by DZAG Wright


you forget the ability to capture momentum. if they go door to door confiscating weapons from citizens, keep in mind that whole platoons have awoken to these globalist motives and just might stand by our side because they don't like the idea of killing innocent people

In your deliberations, when seeking to determine the military conditions, let them be made the basis of a comparison, in this wise. 1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law? 2) Which of the two generals has most ability? 3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth? 4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced? 5) Which army is the stronger? 6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained? 7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment? By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat.
Sun Tzu