PDA

View Full Version : Second Amendment, Gun Control


USMCM16A2
07-22-2012, 2:24 PM
Folks,



I have spent part of the day looking up the gun-control debate, and the arguments that both sides use for and against. The left is arrogant in its characterizing the American public as a bunch of children, that need to be protected from these "deadly weapons".
Examining video from the discussions about the VA Tech shooting, the Arizona Representative shooting, and the Colorado shooting. The arguments area always the same, more gun laws. Ban this, limit that make this and that unavailable. Civilians do not need to have AR15/AK47 rifles, and it is always the same people. Diane Finestein, Lautenberg, the Brady Bunch, Rosy O.
Their logic is illogical, their arguments are tired, scare tactics are worthless. Big cities, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, are all trying legislate what the rest of the country does with their lives. So as California does, so does the rest of the US. A popular saying, which is even more important more than ever, because we here are fighting the bastards, that would spread their ****ty agenda to other states.
Our 2A Rights are more clearly spelled out now than at any point in our history, Heller/McDonald. Keep giving to the STOPSB249 fight, CGF, and the NRA, because it is the future we are protecting. A2

leman77
07-22-2012, 2:28 PM
^ agreed!

Rider1k
07-22-2012, 2:36 PM
^^^ Agreed

4D5auto
07-22-2012, 2:42 PM
Ban crazy people...

Upon Obama's exit, he will re institute the Clinton assault Weapons Ban! Wouldn't be surprised if he also bans the sale of ammo on the internet, among other things.

SupportGeek
07-22-2012, 3:21 PM
Ban crazy people...

Upon his exit, he will re institute the Clinton assault Weapons Ban! Wouldn't be surprised if he also bans the sale of ammo on the internet, among other things.

Assuming you mean the current president, cant any new elected POTUS reverse any "last minute" decisions made by his predecessor? Isn't that what most new presidents do for the first couple months of their presidency? Review and possibly reverse anything implemented at the last minute?

scoobyj
07-22-2012, 3:28 PM
Ban crazy students! :mad:

erik_26
07-22-2012, 4:14 PM
I think what people fail to understand is, gun ownership is a right.


And so is the right to LEAVE the country.


If you don't like our laws & freedoms and seek a false sense of security with a parental government, MOVE TO FRANCE or ENGLAND or CANADA!


Do not make 350 million plus AMERICAN citizens conform to YOU!

EM2
07-22-2012, 5:42 PM
Folks,



I have spent part of the day looking up the gun-control debate, and the arguments that both sides use for and against. The left is arrogant in its characterizing the American public as a bunch of children, that need to be protected from these "deadly weapons".
Examining video from the discussions about the VA Tech shooting, the Arizona Representative shooting, and the Colorado shooting. The arguments area always the same, more gun laws. Ban this, limit that make this and that unavailable. Civilians do not need to have AR15/AK47 rifles, and it is always the same people. Diane Finestein, Lautenberg, the Brady Bunch, Rosy O.
Their logic is illogical, their arguments are tired, scare tactics are worthless. Big cities, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, are all trying legislate what the rest of the country does with their lives. So as California does, so does the rest of the US. A popular saying, which is even more important more than ever, because we here are fighting the bastards, that would spread their ****ty agenda to other states.
Our 2A Rights are more clearly spelled out now than at any point in our history, Heller/McDonald. Keep giving to the STOPSB249 fight, CGF, and the NRA, because it is the future we are protecting. A2




I think many people misunderstand our opponent.
They are not stupid or unintelligent nor are they illogocal but they are evil.
They have a different world view which allows them to believe that they (and their class) have a right to manipulate & control other people.
What we are witnessing is an attempt to manipulate the populace, especially the un-informed.
Thay cannot win a battle of logic against our possition but then again they do not need to. They simply need to convince those not paying attention.

USMCM16A2
07-22-2012, 6:10 PM
EM2,



First off, I want to thank you for your service to our nation. Believe me, I do not think for one second that our opponents are stupid. We as gun owners can rationalize all we want about the motives of people like Finestein, Lautenberg, the Bradys.
But one thing is clear, they shall be fought, in the courts, in the opinion polls, at the ballot box. This is a war that we cannot afford to lose, do I believe that we are looking at confiscation, military police state, no. What is apparent is that the thinking of the anti-gun folks will NEVER change. And that the firearms owning public should and must say NO MORE.
I have been in California 43 of my 45 years. I remember when you could walk into a gun-store and buy an AR15 or AK47 and go home with it. But at some point gun-owners in California fell asleep. I can remember in the mid 1990s when folks kept saying "it will not happen here", "whats next"?. SASS sold people up the river to protect the Cowboy guns from the handgun safety list. Guys like Zumbo who made comments about AR15 rifles as having no place in hunting or the shooting sports.
So, between the apathy of firearms owners, and our illustrious politicians, this where we are. I say to those of you that want to leave the state because of gun laws, go. It will be left for those of us who have balls enough to stand our ground, ALL shooters regardless of what you shoot are in this fight and if you say "it will not happen here" the answer is yes it can. Apathy is our biggest enemy. A2

USMCM16A2
07-22-2012, 6:15 PM
EM2,



First off, I want to thank you for your service to our nation. Believe me, I do not think for one second that our opponents are stupid. We as gun owners can rationalize all we want about the motives of people like Finestein, Lautenberg, the Bradys.
But one thing is clear, they shall be fought, in the courts, in the opinion polls, at the ballot box. This is a war that we cannot afford to lose, do I believe that we are looking at confiscation, military police state, no. What is apparent is that the thinking of the anti-gun folks will NEVER change. And that the firearms owning public should and must say NO MORE.
I have been in California 43 of my 45 years. I remember when you could walk into a gun-store and buy an AR15 or AK47 and go home with it. But at some point gun-owners in California fell asleep. I can remember in the mid 1990s when folks kept saying "it will not happen here", "whats next"?. SASS sold people up the river to protect the Cowboy guns from the handgun safety list. Guys like Zumbo who made comments about AR15 rifles as having no place in hunting or the shooting sports.
So, between the apathy of firearms owners, and our illustrious politicians, this where we are. I say to those of you that want to leave the state because of gun laws, go. It will be left for those of us who balls enough to stand our ground, ALL shooters regardless of what you shoot are in this fight and if you say "it will not happen here" the answer is yes it can. Apathy and leaving the state are our biggest enemies. A2

bsim
07-22-2012, 6:26 PM
Murder is illegal.

One more "add-on" for an "illegal weapon" does not change the 1st crime.

So, the real question is, would another law prevent a another crime?

taperxz
07-22-2012, 7:19 PM
I think many people misunderstand our opponent.
They are not stupid or unintelligent nor are they illogocal but they are evil.
They have a different world view which allows them to believe that they (and their class) have a right to manipulate & control other people.
What we are witnessing is an attempt to manipulate the populace, especially the un-informed.
Thay cannot win a battle of logic against our possition but then again they do not need to. They simply need to convince those not paying attention.

Please give me ONE idea they have that IS logical. I see most of their arguments as extremely illogical. How does their intelligent minds bring them to such illogical terms? OR is their intelligence simply perhaps misplaced in the hearts and minds of tragic happenings and they are smart enough to use them for their agenda? Keeping the commoner down.

LARRYPIRRONE1
07-22-2012, 8:59 PM
I am an advocate of the right to keep and bear arms as spelled out in the 2nd amendment. I am a firearms owner and competative shooter. when you consider that the authors of 2A lived in a time when that meant a single shot musket maybe that is all they intended for the people to have. I doubt they anticipated such things as 100 round drum magazines, assault weapons, semi auto pistols with high capacity magazines. They certainly did not anticipate someone walking into a theatre with these weapons and killing 12 people and wounding 50+ in a matter of minutes. Perhaps the desire for these modern weapons comes from us, not the authors of the second amendment. Where does the line get drawn? What makes you comfortable? What arms are over the top? Smart bombs? Lazer guided misiles? They are all "arms". The second amendment did not define "arms".

having said this, perhaps the authors intended that the "people" have parity with typical government forces so as the defend themselves from an oppressive government. In our case that would mean the average man owning machine guns, artillary, misiles, F 16 fighters, etc. at what point does it become rediculous?

I offer this up as devils advocate knowing i will get flamed. But really, what is reasonable?

taperxz
07-22-2012, 9:18 PM
I am an advocate of the right to keep and bear arms as spelled out in the 2nd amendment. I am a firearms owner and competative shooter. when you consider that the authors of 2A lived in a time when that meant a single shot musket maybe that is all they intended for the people to have. I doubt they anticipated such things as 100 round drum magazines, assault weapons, semi auto pistols with high capacity magazines. They certainly did not anticipate someone walking into a theatre with these weapons and killing 12 people and wounding 50+ in a matter of minutes. Perhaps the desire for these modern weapons comes from us, not the authors of the second amendment. Where does the line get drawn? What makes you comfortable? What arms are over the top? Smart bombs? Lazer guided misiles? They are all "arms". The second amendment did not define "arms".

having said this, perhaps the authors intended that the "people" have parity with typical government forces so as the defend themselves from an oppressive government. In our case that would mean the average man owning machine guns, artillary, misiles, F 16 fighters, etc. at what point does it become rediculous?

I offer this up as devils advocate knowing i will get flamed. But really, what is reasonable?

As was mentioned by the supreme court. "arms in common use" Mentioning an f18 fighter is ridiculous. Its a vehicle which could be armed with missiles. I would love to own an F 18 fighter even if i couldn't arm it. To put and F-18 fighter and a machine gun in the same sentence is also ridiculous.

IF I had a machine gun, the only person dead in a horrific act that i was witnessing would be the perpetrator of such incident. I would never ever want to harm an innocent person regardless of the weapon i were carrying.

I guess you just don't trust yourself with a superior weapon????

LARRYPIRRONE1
07-23-2012, 4:37 AM
define "superior weapon". I trust myself to the nth degree. I just don't feel a need for extreme firepower. By the way, I never said or implied that anyone on this forum is out to harm innocent people. I deliberately took the discussion to a rediculous level hoping someone would bring the discussion back to what was intended by the authors of the 2A, not what the modern supreme court has said. btw, that could always change back to the single shot musket. Nothing is etched in stone for the long term.

mag360
07-23-2012, 6:11 AM
Winkler is on the radio whyy fm back east. Says we are unlikely to see any new laws.

mag360
07-23-2012, 6:20 AM
Also says gun control supporters need to vote a gun control ticket but we are unlikely to see any new fed ban.

Says any new mag limits are useless because of how many mags are out there.

SanPedroShooter
07-23-2012, 6:31 AM
I am a gun owner but....

I can always tell what that means.

I also maintain that the saying 'As California goes, so goes the nation' is becoming hopelessly outdated, unless you are describing a negative these days. And I dont mean a subjective negative, I mean like California's inevitable slide into immoral statism and bankruptcy.

For a wider perspective on just what we fight for, I am posting the link in my sig again. If the dry historical context is to long, just catch the last five minutes, from minute 28:12 on.

RsY76EWmbWg

The very firearms that gun grabbers whine and wring their hands about are the core of the Second Amendment. Those firearms are the ones we fight for first.

taperxz
07-23-2012, 6:40 AM
define "superior weapon". I trust myself to the nth degree. I just don't feel a need for extreme firepower. By the way, I never said or implied that anyone on this forum is out to harm innocent people. I deliberately took the discussion to a rediculous level hoping someone would bring the discussion back to what was intended by the authors of the 2A, not what the modern supreme court has said. btw, that could always change back to the single shot musket. Nothing is etched in stone for the long term.

You're the one throwing the musket thing around. You define it. Its not tough.

Thats great that you trust yourself. Implying there is no need to have a machine gun says you trust no one else. That makes YOU a hypocrite.

What the authors wrote and what todays and past supreme courts rule on the 2A are equally important. Especially todays opinion. REGARDLESS of what you think of the original writing.

Interpretation can never go back to a musket. That is the most ridiculous think i have heard. They are not in common use today. I don't think the EPA would approve of the black powder smoke either. :TFH:

Wrangler John
07-23-2012, 7:22 AM
Now I am going to speak a bit of truth. It is simply this:

There is nothing that can be done legislatively, through the operation of law, that can prevent these types of mass murders. There is no system of mental health treatment that can prevent these types of mass murders. There is no instrumentality or speech, movie or media, that can be banned that will prevent these acts. There is no power within human society, or that can be devised, that can predict or prevent such murderous acts.

These incidents are by their nature chaotic (meaning the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system) and unpredictable. There are but two predictions we can make: They will continue to occur in a random and haphazard manner that is unpredictable, and will involve either a severely mentally disturbed individual, or several individuals acting on behalf of a political or religious misanthropy. The greatest difficulty is in recognizing the symptoms leading to the act, as in the case of the lone actor, or in the actions of a group, as in the case of the 911 hijackers. Hindsight always reveals the trail of evidence pointing toward the outcome, one that everyone regrets not acting upon. A trail of indicators that was obscured by the fragmented nature of the observations, and a lack of actionable behaviors.

The only defense against such tragedies is the armed citizen. That was one intended purpose of the Second Amendment, the one that has been chastised and derided by those who decry our right to self-defense.

Firearms hold not the greatest threat to society, but provide the greatest personal security, and by extension the greatest security for a peaceful society.

When the forces from the left cry out stridently for more gun control, for banning the EBR, they should be met with an uproarious choir reminding them that the federal government, at the highest levels, has been involved in the distribution of just such weapons to Mexican drug cartels, as part of an international gun running scheme. That scheme was part of an attempt to promulgate gun control on Americans, while weakening the Second Amendment. The federal government has purposely been involved in the murder of hundreds of citizens of Mexico and the United States, through supplying such weaponry. Where is the greater crime?

Lone_Gunman
07-23-2012, 8:04 AM
Could we defend ourselves from an out of control modern government with a musket? No. Do you not know any history at all? The 2nd amendment was written by men who had just used the latest in firearms and weapons technology to gain their freedom from an oppressive ruler. What do YOU think they meant? As far as I'm concerned the 2nd amendment means that I should be able to own and use any current (or formerly) issued individual weapon of the US military. Not crew served weapons, not missiles, not F-18s, but certainly select fire/full auto weapons, and even a few grenades. I truly believe that the founding fathers meant for the citizens to have access to the latest weaponry available.

define "superior weapon". I trust myself to the nth degree. I just don't feel a need for extreme firepower. By the way, I never said or implied that anyone on this forum is out to harm innocent people. I deliberately took the discussion to a rediculous level hoping someone would bring the discussion back to what was intended by the authors of the 2A, not what the modern supreme court has said. btw, that could always change back to the single shot musket. Nothing is etched in stone for the long term.

howbobert
07-23-2012, 12:37 PM
To the LARRYYPIRRONE1-

I am curious about your statement and how you would equate it to the 1st Amendment. Our founding fathers did not anticipate movies, radios, televisions, the internet, etc. But they are all protected under the 1st Amendment. So, do you think that these modern forms of speech should be protected by it as well? Or just what was available back when it was written? I am of the opinion that the BOR was written to tell the government what they can and cannot do. Those who were part of the compilation of the BOR wanted to place limits on what the government could do. They had firsthand experience with an oppressive government and wanted to keep our new government from following it steps. I also think that the founding fathers were smarter that most people give them credit and that they believed that as time goes on, things are going to be invented that they never thought of.

As for the weapons that they had available during their time, they were parity with the organized military. I should also be noted that they, if they could afford them, also had cannons. Granted these were not the 6+ pounders that the military had. But they did have a bore size of 1-1/2 to 2” and were mainly used in case of Indian attacks. While most of us cannot afford to own a fighter jet, tank, smart bombs and the like, we should at least have parity with the government on our use of small arms (long guns, handguns, magazine capacity, etc.), which are more cost effective for the general population. But, if we could afford a tank, fighter jet, etc. we should be able to have them.

As for the guy in Colorado, I think that he was a nut case and what he did should be treated as something done by such a person. It was not the weapons fault; it was a result of a faulty person.

Just my 2 cents worth.

kaligaran
07-23-2012, 12:58 PM
I am curious about your statement and how you would equate it to the 1st Amendment. Our founding fathers did not anticipate movies, radios, televisions, the internet, etc. But they are all protected under the 1st Amendment. So, do you think that these modern forms of speech should be protected by it as well? Or just what was available back when it was written?

I had heard the argument Larry brought up before. And this by far is the best response I have ever heard to it. I'm making a mental note of this one.
Thanks howbobert!

duggan
07-23-2012, 1:25 PM
the BOR was written to tell the government what they can and cannot do. Those who were part of the compilation of the BOR wanted to place limits on what the government could do.

This^^^^^^^^^^

AeroEngi
07-23-2012, 2:27 PM
To the LARRYYPIRRONE1-

I am curious about your statement and how you would equate it to the 1st Amendment. Our founding fathers did not anticipate movies, radios, televisions, the internet, etc. But they are all protected under the 1st Amendment. So, do you think that these modern forms of speech should be protected by it as well? Or just what was available back when it was written? I am of the opinion that the BOR was written to tell the government what they can and cannot do. Those who were part of the compilation of the BOR wanted to place limits on what the government could do. They had firsthand experience with an oppressive government and wanted to keep our new government from following it steps. I also think that the founding fathers were smarter that most people give them credit and that they believed that as time goes on, things are going to be invented that they never thought of.

As for the weapons that they had available during their time, they were parity with the organized military. I should also be noted that they, if they could afford them, also had cannons. Granted these were not the 6+ pounders that the military had. But they did have a bore size of 1-1/2 to 2 and were mainly used in case of Indian attacks. While most of us cannot afford to own a fighter jet, tank, smart bombs and the like, we should at least have parity with the government on our use of small arms (long guns, handguns, magazine capacity, etc.), which are more cost effective for the general population. But, if we could afford a tank, fighter jet, etc. we should be able to have them.

As for the guy in Colorado, I think that he was a nut case and what he did should be treated as something done by such a person. It was not the weapons fault; it was a result of a faulty person.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Very well said sir! I will remember this when an anti tells me that the founders of our country never envisioned us having fully automatic assault weapons.

LARRYPIRRONE1
07-23-2012, 8:27 PM
Look guys, I threw some ideas out there because I wanted to hear some calm, eloquent arguments for the 2A. Some of you had to amplify your arguments by attacking the messenger personally, (always looked upon as weak and inefective in debate circles). The most elequent and meaningful was presented by howbobert. It makes an excellent point and is the kind of argument that can be taken seriously. There are others as well, but when someone tells me I am a hypocrit because I trust myself and that implies I trust no one else, that is really a weak and inefectual personal attack.

As for not knowing history, I do understand the 2A and the reasons written. I was trying to stimulate discussion. If you want to talk history let me give you some of mine. I am 67 years old. I was born in March 1945 three days before my father flew his first combat mission as the pilot of a B25 gunship against the Japanese. I have been a shooter since I was a kid with my first BB gun. I ENLISTED in the Army in 1966 and became an infantry rifleman. I qualified expert with the M14. I left the Army in 1969 and put myself through college, never taking a dime from my parents for tuition or books.( i did consume some of my moms cooking) The GI bill helped but I worked as well. I built a business that still supports me at 67 years of age. In 1987 my eldest adopted son, age 17, was murdered in a drive by shooting by a moron with a handgun that he took from under his fathers sink that was "hidden" in a tissue box. In spite of that I am an advocate of the 2nd amendment because I see the bigger picture and agree totally with the idea that it is not just about hunting and target practice. I am on the board of directors of, and the match director of my shooting club. We shoot at Angeles and at a private venue that I can't publish. In my spare time I have climbed 66 named mountain peaks, raced bicycles for 10 years and I rank # 2 in the state in my shooting discipline, air rifle field target which is a serious test of marksmanship skill. I shoot 25,000 rounds a year in dedicated practice and often beat men half my age who come to our sport thinking their firearms shooting will have them kicking my butt, only to leave with their tail between their legs, shaking their heads, never to return. I live the second amendment and have the moral authority and have earned the right to discuss it without personal attacks and name calling from someone who will never match my life experience or my shooting skill.

stix213
07-23-2012, 8:51 PM
As for not knowing history, I do understand the 2A and the reasons written. I was trying to stimulate discussion.

I am an advocate of the right to keep and bear arms as spelled out in the 2nd amendment. I am a firearms owner and competative shooter. when you consider that the authors of 2A lived in a time when that meant a single shot musket maybe that is all they intended for the people to have. I doubt they anticipated such things as 100 round drum magazines, assault weapons, semi auto pistols with high capacity magazines. They certainly did not anticipate someone walking into a theatre with these weapons and killing 12 people and wounding 50+ in a matter of minutes. Perhaps the desire for these modern weapons comes from us, not the authors of the second amendment. Where does the line get drawn? What makes you comfortable? What arms are over the top? Smart bombs? Lazer guided misiles? They are all "arms". The second amendment did not define "arms".

having said this, perhaps the authors intended that the "people" have parity with typical government forces so as the defend themselves from an oppressive government. In our case that would mean the average man owning machine guns, artillary, misiles, F 16 fighters, etc. at what point does it become rediculous?

I offer this up as devils advocate knowing i will get flamed. But really, what is reasonable?

If you really knew your history of the 2A you'd know that the 2A dates from a time when cannons firing grapeshot, capable of taking out several lines of infantry in a single blast, were in private hands. These privately owned arms were critical in winning the Revolutionary war.

If you want to reset the 2A back to 1776 weaponry, fine. They had some serious firepower in private hands at the time. Much more than a dude with an AR-15. I'll take one of those privately owned merchanmen converted into a warship covered in as many cannon as they could squeeze on. I wonder what the Sheriff will say yelling from his zodiac when I tell him my 20 cannon armed wooden warship is protected by the 2A. 1776 weaponry and all

The whole "authors of 2A lived in a time when that meant a single shot musket" is simply laughable, and ignores history.

taperxz
07-23-2012, 8:52 PM
Look guys, I threw some ideas out there because I wanted to hear some calm, eloquent arguments for the 2A. Some of you had to amplify your arguments by attacking the messenger personally, (always looked upon as weak and inefective in debate circles). The most elequent and meaningful was presented by howbobert. It makes an excellent point and is the kind of argument that can be taken seriously. There are others as well, but when someone tells me I am a hypocrit because I trust myself and that implies I trust no one else, that is really a weak and inefectual personal attack.

As for not knowing history, I do understand the 2A and the reasons written. I was trying to stimulate discussion. If you want to talk history let me give you some of mine. I am 67 years old. I was born in March 1945 three days before my father flew his first combat mission as the pilot of a B25 gunship against the Japanese. I have been a shooter since I was a kid with my first BB gun. I ENLISTED in the Army in 1966 and became an infantry rifleman. I qualified expert with the M14. I left the Army in 1969 and put myself through college, never taking a dime from my parents for tuition or books.( i did consume some of my moms cooking) The GI bill helped but I worked as well. I built a business that still supports me at 67 years of age. In 1987 my eldest adopted son, age 17, was murdered in a drive by shooting by a moron with a handgun that he took from under his fathers sink that was "hidden" in a tissue box. In spite of that I am an advocate of the 2nd amendment because I see the bigger picture and agree totally with the idea that it is not just about hunting and target practice. I am on the board of directors of, and the match director of my shooting club. We shoot at Angeles and at a private venue that I can't publish. In my spare time I have climbed 66 named mountain peaks, raced bicycles for 10 years and I rank # 2 in the state in my shooting discipline, air rifle field target which is a serious test of marksmanship skill. I shoot 25,000 rounds a year in dedicated practice and often beat men half my age who come to our sport thinking their firearms shooting will have them kicking my butt, only to leave with their tail between their legs, shaking their heads, never to return. I live the second amendment and have the moral authority and have earned the right to discuss it without personal attacks and name calling from someone who will never match my life experience or my shooting skill.

I'm sorry you feel that way and it was not personal. (hard to do on an internet forum IMHO) However for you to give a semi blanket statement that certain guns should be scrutinized for the general public, it just shows a narrow minded state of affairs. In other words "who are we to decide for others state of affairs"

If you can't understand the need for a certain weapon, don't buy it. Please though, if you can't find a legit reason don't trash the system cause someone else has a legit reason. Perhaps this clarifies my ideas better.

Lone_Gunman
07-23-2012, 8:52 PM
First, thank you for your service. Second, I am sorry for the loss of your son. As a father to a 7 year old and a 2 year old I cannot imagine the pain and grief you went through. Third, let me apologize if I offended you. All too often this board is trolled by antis after something horrible like what happened in CO this Friday. Dealing with airheaded, non thinking liberals colored my response to you. I admit I misclassified you in my mind. You came off as an anti gun type in your posts, and I was understandably defensive.

dantodd
07-23-2012, 9:13 PM
It is interesting that you say right in your post that you fully expect to get flamed but then take apparent umbrage when you get exactly what you assumed your post would create.

Where does the line get drawn? The very first line should be educating yourself in how the right is currently understood. You should read the full text of the Supreme Court's Heller and McDonald decisions. It would also be good to acquaint yourself with the appeals courts decisions in Ezell and Woollard.

I am an advocate of the right to keep and bear arms as spelled out in the 2nd amendment. I am a firearms owner and competative shooter. when you consider that the authors of 2A lived in a time when that meant a single shot musket maybe that is all they intended for the people to have. I doubt they anticipated such things as 100 round drum magazines, assault weapons, semi auto pistols with high capacity magazines. They certainly did not anticipate someone walking into a theatre with these weapons and killing 12 people and wounding 50+ in a matter of minutes. Perhaps the desire for these modern weapons comes from us, not the authors of the second amendment. Where does the line get drawn? What makes you comfortable? What arms are over the top? Smart bombs? Lazer guided misiles? They are all "arms". The second amendment did not define "arms".

having said this, perhaps the authors intended that the "people" have parity with typical government forces so as the defend themselves from an oppressive government. In our case that would mean the average man owning machine guns, artillary, misiles, F 16 fighters, etc. at what point does it become rediculous?

I offer this up as devils advocate knowing i will get flamed. But really, what is reasonable?

Librarian
07-23-2012, 9:28 PM
You should read the full text of the Supreme Court's Heller and McDonald decisions. It would also be good to acquaint yourself with the appeals courts decisions in Ezell and Woollard.

In aid of which --
Heller - http://dcguncase.com/blog/
McDonald - http://www.chicagoguncase.com/
Ezell - http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ilnd/246475/
Woollard - http://ia600501.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772/gov.uscourts.mdd.180772.docket.html

dbo
07-23-2012, 10:08 PM
I think we are all beating a dead horse in these forums and over analyzing everything. Generally speaking we are all on calguns because we are pro gun rights. does anyone have anything new to post that is not painfully obvious? maybe we should unionize and have local chapters in every neighborhood because it aint really local when the calguns chapter for this area extends from la to rivertucky and oc. Also I just farted and the dogs left the room...

ICONIC
07-23-2012, 11:17 PM
The problem with the whole gun control issue. Is that what gun control means to the antis is banning firearms. To them gun control is denying law abiding citizens the access to firearms, because it makes them feel safer at night.

The gun control debate is not about finding reasonable solutions to problems that exists. Its about taking away fundamental civil liberties.

gh0stface
07-24-2012, 12:07 AM
Doesn't the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments backup the individuals right to bear arms?

Demonicspire
07-24-2012, 2:33 AM
I wish violent paranoia didn't have to characterize so many of these conversations. And as someone who considers themselves liberal or "leftist" I'm bothered by the number of times I see it used as an insult on these forums. Who is "the left", are they always wrong? Are you always right? Its just ill-defined rage against ill-defined people. Ok I get it, you don't like gun control, I don't either. I support the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. But I don't call people who disagree with me arrogant or childish, or suggest that people who believe differently than me need to leave the country.

Calm, reasonable discussion, free of insults is what's needed. Why are we all so upset when we're WINNING. It may not seem like it, but we really are. Support for gun ownership is rising. We have heller. The aurora shooting happened and the political climate makes it IMPOSSIBLE to leverage for stricter gun control. That UN treaty has 58 senators give or take a few lined up to oppose it before it's even materialized.

There are still things left to do, there always are, and we should all be working hard to stop SB249. But we have to convince people, we can't just yell at them or treat them like idiots, and it is patronizing to suggest that they are stupid brainwashed cowards sucking off the teat of the nanny state. And at the end of the day, if the majority of Californians are in favor of gun control, then it would be un-democratic not to give it to them, in essence, it would be against the will of the people. That's why the focus needs to be winning people over. I really like the "so I took an anti-gunner shooting" stories, because that's using a friendly, low pressure, zero rhetoric environment to show people that guns are safe and enjoyable when used properly.

I don't mean to insult anyone, I just don't like the direction the discussion seems to be heading.

Wrangler John
07-24-2012, 3:17 AM
. . . Who is "the left", are they always wrong? . . .

Yes!

adrenaline
07-24-2012, 4:48 AM
84ptFVq22PY

:43:

This is a fun way to look at the whole gun control debate.