The 2nd Amendment is a JOKE - The hypocrisy of gun owners!

reply to post by SrWingCommander


Very, Very well put. Thank you.

Look - gun owners have compromised already...no rocket launchers, no attack choppers, no nuclear weapons...even though it could probably be argued that the 2nd amendment entitles us to ownership of those things - we're reasonable.

Where are we supposed to draw the line though?
Are we supposed to keep giving ground until the 2nd amendment is a joke?

You have a problem because we don't want to get slowly boiled to death & actually stand up to draw a line?

Last time I checked it was still a respectable thing to know what you believed in & have the self fortitude to actually draw a line in the sand. I'm not going to apologize to you for having a backbone.

You should spend your energy trying to fix one of the many other problems that kill more people in this country than gun violence.

It's not even in the top 10 reasons for death in the US.
Despite what you think, we're barely even in the top 10 per capita on gun deaths in the world (we're 9th in the world, if you care - Source)

There are numerous things that affect many more lives than gun violence does (in 2011 only 8,583 of 12,664 murders in the US were from guns - Source)

Pales in comparison to the 200,000 that died from medial malpractice or even the 117,000 that died from ACCIDENTS - Source

Instead you allow yourself to be whipped into this frenzy by the media over what is statistically a non-issue in order to forward an agenda by the few who want to see us lose the rights that our founding fathers decided were important enough to specifically spell out for us hundreds of years ago.

But for some reason you think you're on the right side of this issue...to each their own.

Originally posted by SrWingCommander
I am going to post something, an educated answer, that is going to blow most of you away.

I am a little tired of this same general argument. " you gun guys think that the second amendment should allow you to have rockets, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc." it's a and ignorant argument and both pro and anti second amendment people get it wrong.

About 15 years, as a political science major, I took a full class called, " guns and the constitution ". It examined gun laws, court cases, and the 2nd amendment and its development.

There was much discussion during the constitutional convention on exactly how the second would work. I am not ( at the moment ) going to break down the whole thing as I want to focus on one of the key words selected for the amendment. And that is the word "arms".

During the vernacular of the day, the word arms referred to that weaponry that was, 1) used by an individual, such as a rifle, pistol, or sword. And 2) were used as the standard weapon of the armed forces infantryman. Muskets were already becoming out classed by the new rifles (incidentally, prior to and during the war the English weren't too concerned about the colonists having muskets, but they WERE concerned about the technological leap to rifles and is one of the weapons they were looking to seize at Lexington and Concord, on this later).

Anyways, there was another term that there was serious discussion about using in the 2nd amendment. That term is "ordnance". In the vernacular of the day ordnance referred to mortars, cannons, and other crew served (not individual)weapons. While the founders wanted the people to have individual personal arms equivalent to the armed forces, they did not see a need for them to own crew served weapons. This is important because prior to the constitution many colonies/states allowed that. Incidentally, many states didn't restrict these weapons after the second was ratified, and even today it's not actually illegal to own an operating tank or cannon in some states...but it's not nesecarily a right protected by the Constitution and is usually highly restricted and/or monitored.

Now, if we take this line of thought as the original intent and extrapolate that to today, it means that the intent of the second amendment allows the people to own equivalent military grade individual arms like an AR-15. but it would not nesecarily protect the right to own weapons like artillery, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc.. Both the Miller and Heller Supreme Court cases used the argument that the 2nd protects weapons that have a militia purpose.

When the British Army marched on Lexington and concord it was to seize rifles and cannon that were being amassed. And this is what started the revolution. Knowing what they were planning,and fearing never being able to fight back should the english continue to rule by increasing tyranny, the colonists knew they had to protect those weapons, particularly the personal equivalent arms (the rifles).

So in a nutshell the 2nd totally protects your right to an AR15. But does not protect your right to a nuclear weapon, or rocket launcher, or whatever stupid analogy some are throwing out there.

If the government goes today to seize those personal arms (semi auto) rifles, they are repeating what the British did. Will the result be the same???? A justified insurrection????

Wow...I knew I'd learn something if I stuck around this thread long enough. Mind officially blown. I didn't even think of reviewing proper term usage...I simply considered it to be equivalent. After reading your post and reviewing your research...I would definitely have to agree with you now...Although, I would still love to have an AH-64 in my back yard ready to Kudos to you sir.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by LifeIsPeculiar

 

Are you of those folks that thinks the Constitution grants rights?

No and I don't need the cliff notes, I myself have given many lectures on ATS about rights being natural and not given. There is no inherent right to own a nuke. There is an inherent right to self defense and if we as a free country decide that we do not need to personally possess a nuke in order to defend ourselves I see no problem with amending the constitution to say so rather than bypassing the constitution illegally.

My post referred to this threads topic, don't go applying my words to another topic as I can't hit a target that moves after I shoot. Thanks.

peace.

ETA - here ya go, one of my many lectures to ATS on the subject
[url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread810390/pg1#pid13494784]link

reply to post by RCham

You have either confused yourself, or are openly practicing deceit. The third sentence of your original post implies that you DO believe the Constitution (specifically the 2nd amendment) grants rights. Respectfully, please clarify your stance. Your credibility is suspect.

My credibility is not suspect, you stating so without any type of explanation does not make it so. If you wish to challenge what I believe you are going to have to do better than that.

here is what I said that you seem to be taking exception to.

If people decide something is too dangerous for a private citizen to own than the constitution should actually be amended to say so.

Now where do I say that the constitution grants rights? If anything, you are the one saying the constitution grants rights by implying that amending the constitution could somehow remove a persons rights. The constitution is codified law, not a right granting piece of paper.

Laws can make guns illegal but they cannot take away my right to defend myself with a gun, only make it illegal to do so. That is what a natural right is, laws cannot take away rights but they can create penalties for expressing a natural right. Doesn't mean I like it. You are the one who seems to mis-understand what a natural right is.

Like I said, my post was in regards to the topic of this thread, I wasn't aware my words were going to be used in the context of another thread topic and like I said, I can't hit a target if it is moved after I shoot.

Additionally, it is unsound logically to attack the legitimacy of the 2nd just because it is not infinitely specific

Ummm. where have I attacked the 2nd amendment? You may have missed it but I am actually on this thread defending it? You seem to have not only entirely missed my point but have failed to comprehend what I wrote.

reply to post by sageofmonticello


I'm sorry. Please disregard-rookie move. I usually write what I'll post and then revise it as necessary. I merged two things I was reading/posting, and should've caught that, but somehow I hit post instead of preview. When I saw it had posted I edited it, but I guess you saw it first. How fortifying! I offer a public apology and the post I meant to place here is above, as meant. Again, sorry.

Originally posted by RCham
reply to post by sageofmonticello

 

I'm sorry. Please disregard-rookie move. I usually write what I'll post and then revise it as necessary. I merged two things I was reading/posting, and should've caught that, but somehow I hit post instead of preview. I offer a public apology and the post I meant to place here is above, as meant. Again, sorry.

Thanks, glad to hear it as I was really wondering how somebody could confuse what I was saying to such a degree. No love lost, I never have any problem explaining myself further when asked.

peace.

tl;dr

Nukes are an indiscriminate weapon. Guns are not. / thread

Edit: also, American citizens already have access to these facilities/weapons. Lets not forget that our military is made up of US civilians...just something to think about.

Oh please, like we care about your twisted views on the second ammendment. Gun owners are comfortable with our guns and please remember, not all gun owners have assault weapons. I think I would speak for the majority of gun owners in saying armed citizens do not care to own things like surface to air missles, atomic weapons, attack helicopters, or any kind of bombs. I think that guns still are a great deterence to a government that is tyrannical. That is regardless of what weapons that government has because a government that turns on it's own population has created a civil war and those are costly conflicts, just look at Syria today. You have twisted logic and try to inject your logic into the thinking of how gun owners may view the second ammendment and that is the sign of a very sick, twisted, and demented mind that needs psychological counseling, please seek help. You seek to project your world views on others perhaps out of a dim view of your own shortcomings and failures in life perhaps? The second ammendment is very clear of what are the rights of American citizens. Some American citizens chose to exercise thier rights under the second ammendment and some do not. People like you that are hateful and despise others would choose to deny others their rights and try to project evil into the discourse and place that evil onto the people you hate and despise. That is a tacticle maneuver in classic communist teachings and I am at least glad to see you sticking at least to one coherent script.

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
*snip*
If this is true, gun owners must also support the right to bear rocket launchers, they must support the right to own a fleet of attack helicopters. They must support the right of citizens to stock pile the chemical ingredients for making large bombs. They must support these.
*snip*

Your point? According to the 2'nd Amendment, yes, we should be able to have those things. Rather the whole point. No hypocrisy there. The problem is that the cost is too high, and tax money (from the people) pays for those things for the government. Then there are regulations, placed by, oh, yeah, the government.

By the highest law of the land, a private group of citizens should be able to get together and purchase just about whatever they want, with limits only on things that aren't legal for governments, like chemical and biological weapons, and nukes. Any group that tried that would be called terrorists, though, even if they never made a single threat, held any radical positions, etc.

Originally posted by Spacespider
reply to post by GrandStrategy

 

You will have my vote as next US president

But trying to talk sense into gun loving rednecks is like learning explaining a heroin addict drugs are bad

Wow....eleven stars for a bigoted comment.....what is the site coming to?

Do you have anything actually relevant to add, or is all of your ammo in insulting people?

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


However, you are projecting your thoughts on others again. Private citizens do not want things like that. They just want their gun ownership, that is all. They are not competing with the government in an arms race as you want to envision. People do not want chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. You are being ridiculous or are just too dense to see that society is aware that those are things that need to be dealt with by experts alone, and those reside in government departments, agencies, and the military.

You have no idea what the 2nd amendment is for TS

Brilliantly put !!!

reply to post by GrandStrategy


Stupid or not, we DO have the constitutional right to bear arms. Most laws have been passed within the fact that it doesn't say which arms, hence why we can't own an ICBM. I understand the point you're making. The question I have is: Is it really "hiding" behind the 2nd amendment if that is whats given? Surely, you wouldn't give someone a club in a fight and then cry about getting hit with that same club? It's a simple fact that much like the freedom of speech you use to voice your opinion is guaranteed by the same document that says I can have my gun. So now what? If you can take away the second amendment, then couldn't someone take away the others that we happen to disagree with?

As a gun owner, I can personally say that I don't need a cache of weapons to defend myself nor, do I need automatic guns. I would level with you and say that most people I know that have those follow 2 philosophy's. 1) they just think its cool (you know, bigger,better, more powerful) and 2) They are pretty poor shots and truly don't know what these type of guns where intended for and it certainly isn't for home defense.

You do have a point about the whole "tyrannical Government takeover" subject. That, to me is an excuse. for starters, anyone who has a CCW license, you've already gave the government documentation that you are bearing arms and as you pointed out, anything you can get can be easily outdone with the first soldier at your door. I would also like to point out that America is completely different than the countries these people are pointing out. America is the richest and most protected on this planet and having served in the armed forces, I don't know anyone in any branch, that would willingly invade or turn on their own country, people and family. NO ONE. If Washington came down with those orders, we would have an instant insurrection. So, yes, that argument of government is one of lunacy.

I leave this reply on this point. I have no problems with better background checks, a psych eval or medical records being looked , even for those who are living in the household which the gun would reside but, to think that more gun laws and restrictions on the people seeking ownership legally is going to solve anything is lunacy as well. People will obtain and kill regardless of any law or restriction that maybe passed. That is a historical fact. Making more laws doesn't stop crime, it only makes more criminals. Man has free will. At the end of the day, a gun is a tool. I have never seen a gun load itself, walk itself into a building, aim itself at a person and pull its own trigger without a person willing it. We can ban the tool, but we can never ban the will of man.

reply to post by Gltichy


Thank you. And the realization they are wrong by the gun grabbers in 3...2...oh never mind.....

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
I'll make this quick

Let us start with some facts, shall we.

- The 2nd Amendment grants the American citizen the right to bear arms
- The 2nd Amendment puts no limit on what arms are to be owned
- The purpose is so that the citizens, a militia, secures the security of a free state

So we know why you have a right to arms, and we know there was no further detail on which arms, no set limits on rate of fire, caliber, that sort of thing.

Actually...that is incorrect.

In real life in the version of US History that ACTUALLY occurred the Second Amendment DEMANDS firearm regulations as it reads:

"Amendment II
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."

Likewise...the "Founding Fathers" themselves set forth the first firearm regulations with the Militia Act of 1792 which was passed by the 2nd US Congress (composed predominantly of the original signers of the Constitution) and was signed into law by George Washington himself.

You see...in real life George Washington and the "Founding Fathers" demanded that all males 18-45 submit to on the spot inspection of their firearms at any time, day or night, without a warrant. Furthermore, one could be fined, jailed, or even executed by a military tribunal for failure to comply with such things has having the improper caliber, the wrong number of rounds, a holster made out of something other than bear hide, or having a even having horse that was too short.

You can read the Militia Act of 1792 at the link below on constitution.org and see what the original signers of the US Constitution REALLY thought about firearm regulations.

www.constitution.org...

So basically, we have the right to own a musket? lol Yes, we have the right to bear arms and that includes what the definition of arms includes in the military sense. Do i need a grenade to defend myself? No. Do i need a helicoptor to defend myself? No. It is not necessary nor it is it even a viable option for most Americans and is not even relevent to the 2nd amendment debate. Why do police officers carry guns? Are they deemed with rights higher than those that have given them that right based on the Constitution?
The fact of the matter is, guns are not going anywhere. Governments continue to arm themselves and the black market makes it easy for any criminal to gain any type of weapon they want. But I am supposed to give up my weapon as a law abiding citizen and be defenseless to others with ill intent??

Its sorry ass people like these anti-gun sheeple that disregard the fact that if the original colonists did not have arms, we would be speaking in an English accent and paying homage to the Queen! There would be no America as it is today that allows uninformed idiots to bow down to the whims and wills of tyrannical authority and enslave its own people even more. The debate on gun control is the joke! Leave the constitution alone. If guns, specifically "assault weapons", are such a big problem than why not ban the PRODUCTION and sale of these fire arms instead of messing with my rights? If we dont buy the guns, some other country will or some one else that shouldnt have a weapon will have it.
Stop falling for the media brainwashing and being divided and unite with the PEOPLE of this country! And leave my guns alone. That is all...carry on.

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
I'll make this quick

Let us start with some facts, shall we.

- The 2nd Amendment grants the American citizen the right to bear arms
- The 2nd Amendment puts no limit on what arms are to be owned
- The purpose is so that the citizens, a militia, secures the security of a free state

So we know why you have a right to arms, and we know there was no further detail on which arms, no set limits on rate of fire, caliber, that sort of thing. Because of this gun advocates scream until they're blue in the face that they need assault rifles and that they need machines with dumb high magazines, and that they need 20 guns and thousands of bullets, just in case they have to take to the streets and defeat tyranny. This is what they say, when asked why such weaponry is needed it almost always comes back to the 2nd amendment. It's an excuse, but it's what they say. And it's hard to argue with that - We have the right, therefore we're going to own the guns.
When confronted with the fact that back in them days they had muskets and other weak weaponry, the gun owners say what? that it doesn't matter, it says the right to bear arms and it's all relative, right. Tyrants have muskets, we have muskets. Tyrants have assault rifles, we have assault rifles. It's the right to bear arms, not the right to bear muskets. They need to protect themselves from tyranny in government.

If this is true, gun owners must also support the right to bear rocket launchers, they must support the right to own a fleet of attack helicopters. They must support the right of citizens to stock pile the chemical ingredients for making large bombs. They must support these.

If the founding fathers were alive today, would they not - in the same way that we're told they'd support assault rifles - see what the government has at their disposal, and recognise the need for citizens and militia to have surface-to-air missiles. To shoot down planes, spy drones, that sort of thing? Am I not right in saying that such weapons would be necessary, were a tyranny to form. That a gun would not do the trick, no matter how many rounds it has? Citizens also need fighter jets which are armed to the teeth. They need grenades.

Instead what happens? If you want a grenade you need a NFA Destructive Device permit which isn't easy to get. If you want a rocket launcher you can't have one. If you want an attack helicopter that's not going to fly. So your 2nd amendment, or the purpose of the 2nd amendment, your right to arm up to dissuade from and defeat tyrannical government, it's already been betrayed. You're already denied ownership of necessary weaponry for such a scenario, are you not?

I know you don't bear an attack helicopter, technically speaking. But that's only because the founding fathers did not envisage a society where an attack helicopter is required!

so unless you support the citizens right to easily access and own repeat-fire rocket launchers, fragmentation grenades, the right to create bombs, then you won't be taken seriously by me when talking about the 2nd amendment, nor should you be taken seriously by anybody else.

I no longer want to see you hiding behind the 2nd amendment because you have no reasonable argument for your high powered guns, not unless you're also vocal supporters of the types of weapons I've outlined above, only then will I take seriously your belief in the spirit of the 2nd amendment. Until that time, you're just pretenders, frauds.

Your 30 round clip is no more necessary or justifiable than an automatic grenade launcher. If guns - which couldn't have been imagined at the time - are protected by the 2nd amendment, so too should all the weapons I listed off.

What right do you have to usurp the second amendment of the constitution?With your logic why not just rid our country of all the rights afforded under it?
Your points of equally oppossing forces is only valid in a conventional war which this would not be! You also assume that those in the military would be willing to fight against Americans only seeking a more just society! This would be more an insurgency then a conventional war! Every time guns have been banned has been followed by oppression! I feel the line in the sand has to be drawn here or we will lose every freedom we have left! No more concessions must be made!
I for one don't believe in violent revolution but I also don't agree with oppressive government and when government makes peaceful revolution impossible they will also make violent revolution inevitable! Should we prolong this outcome by taking away a revolutionaries access to these tools? There is an agenda here! I can almost feel it in the air! I hate guns, violence and even I see this is where we are heading! If I could ban weapons all togeather from the face of humanity I would not hesitate but sometimes evil needs to be oppossed with a forced rebellion!

Originally posted by bigdudeisme
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

However, you are projecting your thoughts on others again. Private citizens do not want things like that. They just want their gun ownership, that is all. They are not competing with the government in an arms race as you want to envision. People do not want chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. You are being ridiculous or are just too dense to see that society is aware that those are things that need to be dealt with by experts alone, and those reside in government departments, agencies, and the military.

I didn't say that all gun owners wanted those things. I said that, under the 2'nd Amendment, they should be able to have them, if they so choose. There is a difference. I also specifically stated that chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons were NOT included in that, so stating that people don't want them seems unnecessary. None of what I stated "projects" my thoughts onto others. I stated my opinion.