PDA

View Full Version : Do you really understand the second ammendment?


victor1echo
07-28-2012, 11:16 AM
From reading the responses to the thread about 10 round magazines, I was shocked about how many people are fine with with ten round magazines. Our founding fathers wanted their progeny to have an escape route. From their experience with the British seizing their arms and gun powder, they wanted to make sure that the citizens could use threat of violence against a corrupt government. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, or target practice, it has to do with keeping evil at bay. So give me 20, 30, 40 and 100 round mags. And I will never be happy pushing a tool into a bullet button to release a ten round mag. :chris:Just my two cents.

Redchevyman
07-28-2012, 11:22 AM
Too many people are hung up with sporting and hunting as the only reason to own firearms. The real reason we have the 2nd amendment is to defend against a out of control government.

Do not give up your right to defend our Country from it self.

Mssr. Eleganté
07-28-2012, 11:23 AM
Do you really understand the second ammendment?

I teach US history by the way...

The bigger question is, as a teacher of US history, do you know how to spell second amendment? :p

Sorry, just messin' with you. I too was surprised by all the people in that thread bringing up hunting and recreational shooting as the only reasons for owning firearms.

welchy
07-28-2012, 11:23 AM
Exactly. "shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me.

Lugiahua
07-28-2012, 12:36 PM
A large portion of general public never heard about DC v. Heller (2008), where self-defense was confirmed in 2A.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html/07-290.ZS.html


that's why antis could still use their old argument "2A was only for "militia", not common citizen/ 2A was for hunting, not about owning handgun"
we need to educate people about the current and correct definition and explanation of 2A

furthermore, many states has RKBA in their their own state constitutions, which often state clearly that firearms could be use both as self-defense, and defense of the state.

ap3572001
07-28-2012, 1:17 PM
Most of the people I know know view their firearms as tools for protection against crime, tools for hunting and recreational target shooting.

odysseus
07-28-2012, 1:21 PM
I too was surprised by all the people in that thread bringing up hunting and recreational shooting as the only reasons for owning firearms.

They are among us it seems.

Hecktic
07-28-2012, 1:27 PM
http://i.qkme.me/3ohfif.jpg

gunnerstuff
07-28-2012, 1:35 PM
... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It is plainly an unalienable right, just as we have that right to live! There are no exclusions, options, interpretations, derivations, regulations, or any other form of control.

gixxnrocket
07-28-2012, 2:10 PM
What I seem to gather from the argument is, by point out the FACT that the 2A is/was to empower every citizen against a tyranical government Pro-2A arguers apear as extremist. By sticking to the hunting and target shooting side, it's as if everyone's avoiding the big elephant in the room. so to speak..

Arguing another use for the 2nd amendment to an Anit-, IMO, is the only way for them to comprehend our constitutional right as it applies to "todays day in age".

It hurts my head just trying to empathize that garbage.

It amazes me that the rest of the US Constitution is looked at so broadly and is accepted (even used as TP by elected and civil officials) yet the 2nd amendment is looked at under a microscope with such distain.

littlejake
07-28-2012, 2:31 PM
The 2A is even more fundamental. It is one of those rights that is included in: "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

The Second Amendment tells government, "hands off."

The Bill of Rights was so important that there would not have been a Constitution without it. There were men wise enough to see that limits had to be put on government.

Government does not see the BOR as a list of Rights. They view it as a list of negative rights -- as to them, all rights flow from the government; and the BOR restricts their power.

wash
07-28-2012, 2:48 PM
A lot of you are rightly upset because you can see something that I feel a lot here have failed to verbalize.

Giving away even a small part of the second amendment is spitting in the face of the founding fathers and stealing from future generations.

The second amendment is something we can't bargain with because it isn't ours to bargain with. The second amendment belongs to all of us, past present and future.

It's my duty to the country to protect the rights that my parents and grandparents fought for.

Anyone who fails to protect those rights is selling me out along with those future generations.

donw
07-28-2012, 2:51 PM
does anyone really believe armed resistance to the US/state/county/city government would be successfull? how many AR/firearms owners would actually "Mount up" against any governmental body? there would have to be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to successfully overtake just the state of california. if that happened...they would call in the national guard or US military; anyone feel like taking on the USMC or the 82nd Airborne?

who determines what is "Tyrannical" insofar as governments are concerned? what institute would recoconize the US government or the state of california governement as being "TYRANNICAL"

how would you LEGALLY invoke the second amendment as being exercisized against a tyrannical government? i cannot see the SCOTUS, or a court on ANY level, declare ANY governmental entity as being "TYRANNICAL".

i don't think that: "They want to impose an 10 round limit on our AR's magazines" as a valid reason.

don't misunderstand me...i DO support the 2A, NO BANS/limits on magazines, AR's or AK's, etc...but...we've seen the results of armed rebellions, too, Syria being a current one.

this 'war' must be won with the ballot box NOT the ammo box...we, at this point in time, could NOT win with the ammo box.

spetsnaz
07-28-2012, 2:58 PM
i agree 100% i have been thinking about this the past year and can really see how the people have given up on our rights

free men do not have to ask for permission

Johnnykck
07-28-2012, 3:26 PM
does anyone really believe armed resistance to the US/state/county/city government would be successfull? how many AR/firearms owners would actually "Mount up" against any governmental body? there would have to be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to successfully overtake just the state of california. if that happened...they would call in the national guard or US military; anyone feel like taking on the USMC or the 82nd Airborne?


How many gun owners do we have in the USA? 50 million or more? If only 5% of those stood up to fight for their rights it would be an army of at least 2.5 million. I know quite a few active and retired USMC, a couple Army and a few Navy guys. My brother in law is a Navy Seal. Each and every one has said that they would never turn against their own people, shoot at them if it came to a situation of "revolution" or something along those lines. They all have family members and friends all over the U.S. and would not take a chance of shooting some one they are related to. A lot of them would join the people. Look at how long the united states has been fighting terrorist in Afghanistan, Iraq that are armed with AK's and can not get a handle on it. Over here we have very sophisticated firearms, a lot of shooters trained at long range, close quarters or both. It would be a mess and would take decades to end. Our government knows this, and this was the idea our founding fathers had when they gave us the 2nd amendment.

littlejake
07-28-2012, 3:31 PM
A lot of you are rightly upset because you can see something that I feel a lot here have failed to verbalize.

Giving away even a small part of the second amendment is spitting in the face of the founding fathers and stealing from future generations.

The second amendment is something we can't bargain with because it isn't ours to bargain with. The second amendment belongs to all of us, past present and future.

It's my duty to the country to protect the rights that my parents and grandparents fought for.

Anyone who fails to protect those rights is selling me out along with those future generations.

WOW -- I like that. You just brought back memories of the oath I took on 23 July 1965 which included, "... to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic." (at least those are the words as I recall them.)

And, to donw: no, I do not believe that we the People could stand up to the military/police power of this Nation or state.
We surely would lose.

I am reminded of:

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Winston Churchill

bohoki
07-28-2012, 3:35 PM
i do not read it to be about guns i read it to be about weapons

and that includes ninja stars ,nunchaku, lipstick knives

anything that is some form of tool for hurting something

that being said i hate to be that guy but

a magazine is not a weapon

unless you have a pillowcase full but then technically the pillowcase is the weapon

ap3572001
07-28-2012, 3:43 PM
I guess people think in different ways.....

My firend lives in Portland Or. Works evenings in the downtown area and many times is using a public transportation .

He has a CCW and carries a Glock 26. We talk about guns and politics all the time.

TO HIM , being able to carry His little Glock is enough. And He does not carry it to fight tyranny.

Everyone has RIGHT to think how they want to think.

wash
07-28-2012, 3:55 PM
Well, he's wrong.

donw
07-28-2012, 3:58 PM
How many gun owners do we have in the USA? 50 million or more? If only 5% of those stood up to fight for their rights it would be an army of at least 2.5 million. I know quite a few active and retired USMC, a couple Army and a few Navy guys. My brother in law is a Navy Seal. Each and every one has said that they would never turn against their own people, shoot at them if it came to a situation of "revolution" or something along those lines. They all have family members and friends all over the U.S. and would not take a chance of shooting some one they are related to. A lot of them would join the people. Look at how long the united states has been fighting terrorist in Afghanistan, Iraq that are armed with AK's and can not get a handle on it. Over here we have very sophisticated firearms, a lot of shooters trained at long range, close quarters or both. It would be a mess and would take decades to end. Our government knows this, and this was the idea our founding fathers had when they gave us the 2nd amendment.

bold is my emphasis.

i understand and agree with you. well stated.

but...look at my bold and think: would these 2.5 mil be organized, trained and equipped well enough to take on M1 Abrams tanks, Bradleys, or even old M60MBT's, helicopter gunships, predator drones, A10 warthogs, f-15,16,18,22, B-52, B3, harrier jets...the list goes on...

and yes...the VC and Muhajadeen did it successfully...they paid an awful toll, too. and they were funded/trained, supplied and supported by russia, china and others.

i'm a veteran myself and also know many vets and LE that feel the same.

using our heads and votes is the best way feasible, at this time. who knows what is in the future?

SWalt
07-28-2012, 3:58 PM
Yes, the 2nd is to ensure government doesn't become tyrannical. It is the only purpose of it. Not hunting or shooting. It is the cornerstone of all other freedoms.

Can it be used successfully against the government? Absolutely! Its a starting place, its a beginning. A disarmed populace is nothing but chaff to be used up and blown away in the wind. An armed populace has a foot hold and are not disadvantaged. And who is to say the armed forces won't take their oath seriously? Wars are never won in a short chapter of a history book, some take decades or more. Ask the Viet Cong or any other successful uprising.

Wolverine
07-28-2012, 4:03 PM
how would you LEGALLY invoke the second amendment as being exercisized against a tyrannical government? i cannot see the SCOTUS, or a court on ANY level, declare ANY governmental entity as being "TYRANNICAL".

Well, it probably wouldn't be legal to revolt against a tyrannical government since the tyrannical government would be the one defining what is or is not legal. The Declaration of Independence, however, provides a model for establishing the LEGITIMACY of a revolution not its legality. The signers were all guilty of treason against the crown after all.

this 'war' must be won with the ballot box NOT the ammo box...we, at this point in time, could NOT win with the ammo box.

And if the tyrannical government decides not to seat your duly elected representatives, suspends the Bill of Rights, etc. such as in a government declared national emergency, then the ballot box becomes ineffective and arms are the only and last resort.

I imagine, if things got so bad, then the governments control over the nation and the military will be somewhat tenuous. Enough to enable patriots and factions of the military that are loyal to the cause to be quite effective, even if only regionally.

Revolutions are not new or untried. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don't.

wjc
07-28-2012, 4:06 PM
Yes, the 2nd is to ensure government doesn't become tyrannical. It is the only purpose of it. Not hunting or shooting. It is the cornerstone of all other freedoms.

Can it be used successfully against the government? Absolutely! Its a starting place, its a beginning. A disarmed populace is nothing but chaff to be used up and blown away in the wind. An armed populace has a foot hold and are not disadvantaged. And who is to say the armed forces won't take their oath seriously? Wars are never won in a short chapter of a history book, some take decades or more. Ask the Viet Cong or any other successful uprising.

Although many of you are correct that it is not just about hunting or sport but protection against tyranny, I would also suggest it is also about the freedom to provide for oneself.

Hunting is a way to get meat. If you restrict it your are telling people they have to go to a butcher. Needing firearms during the Colonial period was also about getting food.

Bruce
07-28-2012, 4:38 PM
does anyone really believe armed resistance to the US/state/county/city government would be successfull? how many AR/firearms owners would actually "Mount up" against any governmental body? there would have to be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to successfully overtake just the state of california. if that happened...they would call in the national guard or US military; anyone feel like taking on the USMC or the 82nd Airborne?

who determines what is "Tyrannical" insofar as governments are concerned? what institute would recoconize the US government or the state of california governement as being "TYRANNICAL"

how would you LEGALLY invoke the second amendment as being exercisized against a tyrannical government? i cannot see the SCOTUS, or a court on ANY level, declare ANY governmental entity as being "TYRANNICAL".

i don't think that: "They want to impose an 10 round limit on our AR's magazines" as a valid reason.

don't misunderstand me...i DO support the 2A, NO BANS/limits on magazines, AR's or AK's, etc...but...we've seen the results of armed rebellions, too, Syria being a current one.

this 'war' must be won with the ballot box NOT the ammo box...we, at this point in time, could NOT win with the ammo box.

Uh-huh....That's worked so well here in California hasn't it. Gov. Moonbeam, DeeDee, Babs, PRC-Yee, et al really represent the interests of California gun-owners don't they. :rolleyes:

wjc
07-28-2012, 4:46 PM
I think the second paragraph of The Declaration of Independence holds the bellwther for donw's definition of "Tyranny".

With apologies to The Founding Fathers...


That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.


...amazing how that still rings true after 235 years.

SWalt
07-28-2012, 5:37 PM
Although many of you are correct that it is not just about hunting or sport but protection against tyranny, I would also suggest it is also about the freedom to provide for oneself.

Hunting is a way to get meat. If you restrict it your are telling people they have to go to a butcher. Needing firearms during the Colonial period was also about getting food.

I whole heartedly agree. Hunting has been around since the beginning of time and is normal and natural. Hunting is extremely beneficial. Besides providing food for humans, it keeps herds from over populating and straining their food sources. I haven't hunted in years but I do find very curious people who try to ban hunting. Its as they live in some sort of alternate universe. Both animals and humans hunt. It is the natural order of things. If you don't believe in hunting, then don't do it. Hunting was a main source of providing food during colonial times. Most people lived in rural areas and were not confined in cities as is today. I rather have fresh meat free from preservatives and additives. Truly organic! But the political philosophy was to ensure people a way of revolt from tyranny.

wchutt
07-28-2012, 6:02 PM
A short and simple, yet well documented read on the 2nd is "The Second Amendment" by David Barton. Should be required reading in every high school American Gov't class IMO.

Capybara
07-28-2012, 6:22 PM
I just shot with new BB'd AR with 10 round magazines. My first AR. The BB is a PITA, I will be converting to featureless, my Uzi is featureless and it is worth it to me. 10 round magazines are a PITA as well.

I would really like to exercise my 2A rights by not having to use a BB and not being restricted to 10 round magazines.

diablodawg
07-28-2012, 6:31 PM
Playing devil's advocate, where does it stop? Should any idiot civilian have access to a SAW? To a M2? To a M777? Do you trust any idiot, including many on this website, with high explosives or weapons who's SDZs are measured in tens of klicks? Since few are advocating sale of AT-4s at 7-11, there has to be a line somewhere.
The key is, to find a line that is reasonable with the public (those that vote for those who affirm or amend the constitution or write laws.) How do we frame the argument? What is the reasoning? "You don't get it" doesn't work. Most of the people "don't get" much.

wjc
07-28-2012, 6:35 PM
Not being facecious...

Why does there have to be a line?

Agent Orange
07-28-2012, 6:37 PM
A prime example of many here who don't get it...

diablodawg
07-28-2012, 6:41 PM
So there isn't one. You are in favor of guns being sold on every street corner, next to HE and poison gas? Really? Those are military weapons. Want civilians dropping JDAMs out of Cessnas?

Regarless of "getting it" or not, there is a line. Or please submit your bill to allow me to purchase an APOBS to clear the weeds from my yard.

This ain't the 1780s any more, fellas. We need to deal with it in an overt way- we've already accepted it to a degree.

tuolumnejim
07-28-2012, 6:53 PM
Playing devil's advocate, where does it stop? Should any idiot civilian have access to a SAW? To a M2? To a M777? Do you trust any idiot, including many on this website, with high explosives or weapons who's SDZs are measured in tens of klicks? Since few are advocating sale of AT-4s at 7-11, there has to be a line somewhere.
The key is, to find a line that is reasonable with the public (those that vote for those who affirm or amend the constitution or write laws.) How do we frame the argument? What is the reasoning? "You don't get it" doesn't work. Most of the people "don't get" much.

Please leave us be :troll:.

saint7
07-28-2012, 6:56 PM
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/552522_505200526173219_156845130_n.jpg

Why yes I do know... to prevent this from happening on this sovereign nations soil.

diablodawg
07-28-2012, 6:57 PM
Okay, instead of having an intelligent debate to further the cause which we all subscribe to, you call names. Good one. How about you just answer a question in my first post or come up with an actual point to make?

GOEX FFF
07-28-2012, 7:15 PM
<snip> Do you trust any idiot, including many on this website, <snip>

Okay, instead of having an intelligent debate to further the cause which we all subscribe to, you call names. Good one. How about you just answer a question in my first post or STFU?


Asking for an intelligent debate while telling people at the same time that they should just STFU and calling people here idiots in your first post...Good one. That's quite the hypocritical post. Keep it up, I suspect with that attitude, you won't be around the forums very long. BTW, a troll is not a name, it's a title.

And in the of spirit our dear beloved Mr. Flinch..... "you haven't been around here posting long enough to tell people to STFU."

diablodawg
07-28-2012, 7:52 PM
Okay, edited. Please continue with the regularly scheduled debate.

wash
07-28-2012, 8:23 PM
It's funny, a few years back I gave an aerial bomb to a co-worker of mine and he owns a Cessna.

I wasn't worried about it because he's not a criminal and so far he hasn't dropped it on anything unless he dropped it on the town he bought.

True story.

bomb_on_bus
07-28-2012, 8:39 PM
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/552522_505200526173219_156845130_n.jpg

Why yes I do know... to prevent this from happening on this sovereign nations soil.

Pretty much sums it up for me.

As passed by the Congress:


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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:


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.

The problem is that states can uphold or imply their own interpretations of the amendments.

This is taken from saf where they list states that have firearm rights in state constitutions. Sadly enough California doesn't have anything of the sort.

However, the California Constitution provides for "inalienable rights" including "defending life and liberty ... and protecting property..." Article I, Section 1 reads:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Furthermore, once the Second Amendment is properly defined as an individual right (hopefully in the Emerson Case), then Article III, Section 1 of the California Constitution would apply the Second Amendment to the State Laws of California. Article III, Section 1 reads:

The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

bomb_on_bus
07-28-2012, 8:54 PM
Playing devil's advocate, where does it stop? Should any idiot civilian have access to a SAW? To a M2? To a M777? Do you trust any idiot, including many on this website, with high explosives or weapons who's SDZs are measured in tens of klicks? Since few are advocating sale of AT-4s at 7-11, there has to be a line somewhere.
The key is, to find a line that is reasonable with the public (those that vote for those who affirm or amend the constitution or write laws.) How do we frame the argument? What is the reasoning? "You don't get it" doesn't work. Most of the people "don't get" much.

It stops with common sense. You wouldn't expect someone to have a battleship or a nuclear balistic sub sitting in their back yard either.

And that is why there are back ground checks with the purchase of firearms. The backgrounds are handled by the .gov and as you very well know the .gov cannot make a bowl of cereal without it going up in smoke and it costing the tax payers billions. So if you can find out a way to sort out and separate a killer before they commit a crime, let the .gov know. Oh and how is lax criminal laws working out for you?

diablodawg
07-28-2012, 9:12 PM
It stops with common sense. You wouldn't expect someone to have a battleship or a nuclear balistic sub sitting in their back yard either.


Which is my exact point- what is "common sense?" The constitution doesn't specify. My argument is that there exists a line somewhere between musket and nuclear missile submarine in the public's mind...and in ours. We need to define what our line is and get the public to think likewise. The first step is to accept that we have a collective idea of what is legal and ilegal... despite what the constitution says.

wash
07-28-2012, 9:39 PM
Not really. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and I like the constitution just as it is.

What you call common sense is actually your inflated opinion of yourself, thinking that the founding fathers should be overruled on your whim.

Johnnykck
07-28-2012, 10:13 PM
Playing devil's advocate, where does it stop? Should any idiot civilian have access to a SAW? To a M2? To a M777? Do you trust any idiot, including many on this website, with high explosives or weapons who's SDZs are measured in tens of klicks? Since few are advocating sale of AT-4s at 7-11, there has to be a line somewhere.
The key is, to find a line that is reasonable with the public (those that vote for those who affirm or amend the constitution or write laws.) How do we frame the argument? What is the reasoning? "You don't get it" doesn't work. Most of the people "don't get" much.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, I must say I agree.

Moto
07-28-2012, 10:17 PM
------- My brother in law is a Navy Seal. Each and every one has said that they would never turn against their own people, shoot at them if it came to a situation of "revolution" or something along those lines. They all have family members and friends all over the U.S. and would not take a chance of shooting some one they are related to. A lot of them would join the people.

Hmmmm. Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tta1qhQZWSE

rexblaine
07-29-2012, 12:25 AM
How many gun owners do we have in the USA? 50 million or more? If only 5% of those stood up to fight for their rights it would be an army of at least 2.5 million. I know quite a few active and retired USMC, a couple Army and a few Navy guys. My brother in law is a Navy Seal. Each and every one has said that they would never turn against their own people, shoot at them if it came to a situation of "revolution" or something along those lines. They all have family members and friends all over the U.S. and would not take a chance of shooting some one they are related to. A lot of them would join the people. Look at how long the united states has been fighting terrorist in Afghanistan, Iraq that are armed with AK's and can not get a handle on it. Over here we have very sophisticated firearms, a lot of shooters trained at long range, close quarters or both. It would be a mess and would take decades to end. Our government knows this, and this was the idea our founding fathers had when they gave us the 2nd amendment.

What most fail to understand is that the resistance would not be in the form of deshevled masses charging the police line, but rather the occupying troops having their throats cut while they relax in the local bar off duty. The guns are a focus point to project a symbolic concept of freedom. There will be plenty of guns to go around even if they were banned completely. The removal of guns from our cold dead hands just makes for a more interesting revolt down the line.

sandwich
07-29-2012, 2:39 AM
would these 2.5 mil be organized, trained and equipped well enough to take on M1 Abrams tanks, Bradleys, or even old M60MBT's, helicopter gunships, predator drones, A10 warthogs, f-15,16,18,22, B-52, B3, harrier jets...the list goes on...


In the US, it would be much harder since ordinary citizen has access to technologies which can bog down if not completely stop modern military. You can create jammers and spoofing tools for radio signals and satellite links (including drones, etc.). You can create EMP generators which can destroy electronics remotely. You can hack into wired as well as wireless network systems (weakest link is usually the human ones). Ways of bypassing biometrics (both fingerprints and iris) are well documented. Powerful portable lasers can be used to disrupt those who have to see from snipers to pilots.

Guns [and bombs] are not the only tools to fight a modern war.

Agent Orange
07-29-2012, 4:31 AM
Lmfao. Are we learning anything here diablo?

diablodawg
07-29-2012, 7:30 AM
Not really. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and I like the constitution just as it is.

What you call common sense is actually your inflated opinion of yourself, thinking that the founding fathers should be overruled on your whim.

Okay, then why aren't you fighting for a civilian possessing any type of arm since the constitution doesn't specify? Why is there restrictions on owning any of the things I previously mentioned?

Are you going to actually make any points or just do the usual internet call-each-other-names game?

The founding fathers are constantly overruled or affirmed by the SCOTUS- who are chosen by those your fellow citizens elect.

Flipdude
07-29-2012, 8:08 AM
I agree that the 2nd Amendment was created to fight against a tyrannical government but when the time comes, the U.S. government will not be using our own military against us because there will be so many deserters within the ranks. They know that and that is why they have been training the U.N. troops along with foreign troops to take over when a civil unrest ever happens. All communications will be severed (unless you're a HAM operator) and it would be very difficult (but not impossible) to gather up and fight for a common cause.

The very core of our governmental structure will fall apart (when an event of a U.N. military takes over) and there will be a military coup d'etat of a massive proportion. There will be sovereign states that will drop out of the union and will become they're own republics and will use their army to fight against the tyrannical government. The general populace who are armed will become a volunteer militia that can be trained by the states who dropped out of the union and will fight together with the army. I just pray to God that it doesn't come to this.

ap3572001
07-29-2012, 8:24 AM
I am sure that the Second Amendment was created for people to have firearms so they can deal with tyranny.

I also agree that an armed population can stand up for itself better than unarmed. No argument about it .

But MOST people I tAlk to today , view firearms as tools of self defense against a common criminal. The same way they view baseball bats , knives, combat martial arts etc.

They also view them as tools for hunting , target shooting, action shooting, plinking ,etc.

People I am talking about are pro gun people who actually CARRY and USE firearms.

wash
07-29-2012, 9:05 AM
Okay, then why aren't you fighting for a civilian possessing any type of arm since the constitution doesn't specify? Why is there restrictions on owning any of the things I previously mentioned?

Are you going to actually make any points or just do the usual internet call-each-other-names game?

The founding fathers are constantly overruled or affirmed by the SCOTUS- who are chosen by those your fellow citizens elect.
That is a problem when SCOTUS does that.

They don't realize that we have a process of constitutional amendment which is the proper process to use if they really think the constitution needs to be changed.

I'll fight for other weapons in due time.

Also, is it really name calling when you discount all opinions beside your own and want to sell out future generations?

JustEd
07-29-2012, 9:26 AM
Have a different take on the wording of "a well regulated militia" and it is as follows:

The word "regulated" is not used as in principle of law under which the militia exists. Here regulated is used to denote that our militia has to maintain an effective level of competency. To continue to make that possible as our militia had little training, the existing right of the citizenry to own and use firearms needs to be protected lest we lose that pool of competent shooters.

2a does not say that the military is the only reason for the public to have access to firearms, simply that by recognizing and protecting the individual's preexisting right to keep and bear arms we continue our readiness for defense.

I believe that 2a honored the contributions skilled citizen marksmen made during the Revolutionary War. It recognized that our fellow countryman's marksmanship is what helped and can continue to help us defend our country from tyrants. It did not seek in any way to redefine the well understood right for people to defend themselves, with firearms if necessary.

It's as clear as the crack in the Liberty Bell!!!

MontClaire
07-29-2012, 9:40 AM
As I understand hunting or sport has nothing to do with 2A. There was no question back then that you couldn't hunt and rarely did people played for sport with their guns. It had to do with protecting the people from tyranny by their own elected officials. Some call it government but majority of jobs in it are assigned and not elected. Hence it's protection from those we entrust our future in when we elect them in case they get high on power.

ap3572001
07-29-2012, 10:13 AM
As I understand hunting or sport has nothing to do with 2A. There was no question back then that you couldn't hunt and rarely did people played for sport with their guns. It had to do with protecting the people from tyranny by their own elected officials. Some call it government but majority of jobs in it are assigned and not elected. Hence it's protection from those we entrust our future in when we elect them in case they get high on power.

You are making sense.

As I said before , MOST people I meet who acutally CARRY and USE firearms are not thiking that way.

Flipdude
07-29-2012, 10:27 AM
Hence it's protection from those we entrust our future in when we elect them in case they get high on power.

Which is our current situation with our present administration.

donw
07-29-2012, 11:16 AM
In the US, it would be much harder since ordinary citizen has access to technologies which can bog down if not completely stop modern military. You can create jammers and spoofing tools for radio signals and satellite links (including drones, etc.). You can create EMP generators which can destroy electronics remotely. You can hack into wired as well as wireless network systems (weakest link is usually the human ones). Ways of bypassing biometrics (both fingerprints and iris) are well documented. Powerful portable lasers can be used to disrupt those who have to see from snipers to pilots.

Guns [and bombs] are not the only tools to fight a modern war.

all true, believable and acceptable...however...i rode helicopter gunships that were highly effective on MANUAL control..both the helo and the armaments.

most light infantry weapons, even of today, can be highly effective operating from iron sights.

even if you can interrupt communications, weapons guidance systems, can you still effectively, attack heavy armor/aircraft/trained troops? most are trained to operate on "Manual" as well as electronically.

Wiz-of-Awd
07-29-2012, 11:43 AM
i agree 100% i have been thinking about this the past year and can really see how the people have given up on our rights

free men do not have to ask for permission

Let us not forget that a completely free society - one that doesn't have to ask permission - would be free to do as they saw fit with their lives. This includes the people among us who believe in things that we do not. Things that may be perceived as bad and evil.

Don't forget that our founding fathers, knowing full well the fundamental rights of the people, also knew full well - the need for order and structure within a society.

I believe, that the forming of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, was done so in an effort to allow the "people" to keep control of their lives and rights, but also to allow for a true balance between the people and Gov that they appointed.

Balance exists undeniably in nature, and this includes the rules within a society that we [try to] form as "the people."

I don't believe that the Constitution and Bill of Rights was created without a means of counteracting [by the Gov] in-balance within the society.

A.W.D.

fiddletown
07-29-2012, 11:56 AM
...Balance exists undeniably in nature, and this includes the rules within a society that we [try to] form as "the people."...As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Wiz-of-Awd
07-29-2012, 12:06 PM
...a moral and religious people...

This of course is where the problem lies - for all things wrong and out of balance/control in our society.

Morals, and perhaps religion as well, is far from what it was so many years ago. The entitled and uncaring people of this world are to blame for what is wrong in society today. The blame lies squarely with them.

Until we [as a people] have the balls to cut out the cancer, the cancer will spread - out of control, until it consumes and overtakes the host.

A.W.D.

fiddletown
07-29-2012, 12:34 PM
...The entitled and uncaring people of this world are to blame for what is wrong in society today. The blame lies squarely with them....Nope. That's not what John Adams was talking about. Morals and religion discipline the person. One who is truly moral and religious controls himself -- so there's no need for a government to do it. And morals and religion fosters personal responsibility.

Wiz-of-Awd
07-29-2012, 1:28 PM
Nope. That's not what John Adams was talking about. Morals and religion discipline the person. One who is truly moral and religious controls himself -- so there's no need for a government to do it. And morals and religion fosters personal responsibility.

I think, respectfully, that you missed my point...

You said - based on the thoughts of John Adams, "Morals and religion discipline the person. One who is truly moral and religious controls himself..."

I said, "The entitled and uncaring people of this world are to blame for what is wrong in society today. The blame lies squarely with them."

So, in keeping with your words and the thoughts of John Adams, those people within our society - who lack morals and religion to discipline themselves - are precisely why [the] government has to do it.

A.W.D.

IPSICK
07-29-2012, 4:17 PM
...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...

The problem is that states can uphold or imply their own interpretations of the amendments.

This is taken from saf where they list states that have firearm rights in state constitutions. Sadly enough California doesn't have anything of the sort.

However, the California Constitution provides for "inalienable rights" including "defending life and liberty ... and protecting property..." Article I, Section 1 reads:

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

Furthermore, once the Second Amendment is properly defined as an individual right (hopefully in the Emerson Case), then Article III, Section 1 of the California Constitution would apply the Second Amendment to the State Laws of California. Article III, Section 1 reads:

The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.


I find it ironic that the California Constitution seems to outline self-defense as an inalienable right but the current legislators wish to remove the best tools to help exercise that right.

I am really enjoying the reinvigorated debate on keeping and bearing arms and in particular the tenets of the 2nd Am. It never really sat well with me from my research and reading of the Heller decision that it emphasized an individual right related to self-defense while allowing for "common sense" limitations on ownership. From my research, I really believe that the SuCo Justices committed judicial activism when they established that the 2nd Am includes the use of firearms for self-defense. The 2nd Am really does not do anything of the sort and is really for armed defense against enemies of the nation, state, and government tyranny. The prior Miller decision highlights the interpretation that the militia (everyday citizens and not the National Guard) must be well regulated (properly trained and equipped) with arms in common use at the time. This should really mean that ARs, AKs, and similar should be protected by the 2nd Am and not be subject to common sense limitations. The only thing I (me personally and not meant to dismiss the opinion of others) feel is common sense is limitations on fully automatic (select-fire) and explosive devices/munitions. Even though we should have access to weapons in common use by the military, full auto and explosives are more difficult for individuals' control and responsibility (meaning control of collateral damages is severely handicapped due to the nature of these types of arms). Just my take.

And regarding self-defense. As indicated by the quote in my sig, it is a natural and inalienable right. The tools protected by the 2nd Am help to exercise that right but the 2nd Am does not establish self-defense rights. Self-defense afaik is unenumerated in the US Constitution and should therefore be protected by the 9th Am. Unfortunately, no SuCo to date has extended that interpreation within the 9th Am. Again, just my take. I am only a layman idiot.

sandwich
07-29-2012, 5:20 PM
The only thing I (me personally and not meant to dismiss the opinion of others) feel is common sense is limitations on fully automatic (select-fire) and explosive devices/munitions. Even though we should have access to weapons in common use by the military, full auto and explosives are more difficult for individuals' control and responsibility (meaning control of collateral damages is severely handicapped due to the nature of these types of arms).

So, what makes a military person any more responsible with such arms? A bullet doesn't fly any "safer" just because one wears a certain uniform.

If anyone can get equal training, what's the difference? (Or to put it another way, if you can trust someone with a semi auto, why can't you trust that same person with full auto?)

Nyanman
07-29-2012, 6:17 PM
Playing devil's advocate, where does it stop? Should any idiot civilian have access to a SAW? To a M2? To a M777? Do you trust any idiot, including many on this website, with high explosives or weapons who's SDZs are measured in tens of klicks? Since few are advocating sale of AT-4s at 7-11, there has to be a line somewhere.
The key is, to find a line that is reasonable with the public (those that vote for those who affirm or amend the constitution or write laws.) How do we frame the argument? What is the reasoning? "You don't get it" doesn't work. Most of the people "don't get" much.

Darling generally solves these problems. There are also laws about shooting people. Accidentally launch a missile into a house, you get things like property destruction, possible manslaughter charges, gross negligence. Plus, rockets are expensive, and missiles are very expensive. Shooting one AT4 costs a bit over $1000. Basically, each shot is like setting fire to a pile of money. I would rather buy a nice gun and lots of ammo for the same amount. And rockets and missiles all have back blast.

In other words, cost is a deterrence along with safety. Darling will take care of the really stupid ones, and the laws will take care of the grossly negligent ones.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

cmaynes
07-29-2012, 6:34 PM
\

this 'war' must be won with the ballot box NOT the ammo box...we, at this point in time, could NOT win with the ammo box.

you might read TE Lawrence on that... he would probably disagree. The typical calculus of strength required to occupy territory is one man per square mile... and according to the anti-gun rights folks we have 88 guns per 100 people in the country.

that seems to indicate extremely high odds for the government to pacify the population if a revolution were to occur.

Dantedamean
07-29-2012, 10:47 PM
Too many people are hung up with sporting and hunting as the only reason to own firearms. The real reason we have the 2nd amendment is to defend against a out of control government.

Do not give up your right to defend our Country from it self.

Ya it seems like people feel like they need to have a come back for 'guns are made to kill people'
My response is always 'yes, and we use them for protection.' I'm tired of people feeling like they need to justify owning a gun. I own a pistol to defend myself against other people, I own multiple rifles to defend myself and the ones I care about from governments, both foreign and domestic. Oh and I occasionally hunt too.

kcbrown
07-29-2012, 10:49 PM
this 'war' must be won with the ballot box NOT the ammo box...we, at this point in time, could NOT win with the ammo box.

That's correct. And it'll get even more impossible as time goes on and as the disparity in force between the government and the citizenry continues to increase.

The only U.S. government that the citizenry can possibly win against is one that is in the process of collapsing from the inside, and possibly not even then (insurrection tends to be a galvanizing event).

kcbrown
07-29-2012, 10:53 PM
How many gun owners do we have in the USA? 50 million or more? If only 5% of those stood up to fight for their rights it would be an army of at least 2.5 million. I know quite a few active and retired USMC, a couple Army and a few Navy guys. My brother in law is a Navy Seal. Each and every one has said that they would never turn against their own people, shoot at them if it came to a situation of "revolution" or something along those lines. They all have family members and friends all over the U.S. and would not take a chance of shooting some one they are related to. A lot of them would join the people. Look at how long the united states has been fighting terrorist in Afghanistan, Iraq that are armed with AK's and can not get a handle on it.


The problem here is that you don't understand the problem.

For a revolution to succeed in the U.S., it wouldn't merely need to survive as the Afghans, Iraqis, etc., have. It would have to win. That's because the objective of a revolution is to overthrow the sitting government.

I don't understand why so many people don't seem to get this hugely important distinction.



Over here we have very sophisticated firearms, a lot of shooters trained at long range, close quarters or both. It would be a mess and would take decades to end. Our government knows this, and this was the idea our founding fathers had when they gave us the 2nd amendment.

When the founders created the 2nd Amendment, they didn't envision the disparity of force between the armed citizenry and the government growing so large.

One wonders what sort of amendment they would have crafted had they been able to anticipate this particular development.

kcbrown
07-29-2012, 11:11 PM
Playing devil's advocate, where does it stop? Should any idiot civilian have access to a SAW? To a M2? To a M777? Do you trust any idiot, including many on this website, with high explosives or weapons who's SDZs are measured in tens of klicks? Since few are advocating sale of AT-4s at 7-11, there has to be a line somewhere.
The key is, to find a line that is reasonable with the public (those that vote for those who affirm or amend the constitution or write laws.) How do we frame the argument? What is the reasoning? "You don't get it" doesn't work. Most of the people "don't get" much.

The line should be the point where the risk to life and limb from accidental misuse of a given type of weapon can be shown to be intolerable. That's quite easy to show with nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, because a single mistake will take out hundreds of thousands of people in one go. The same is true, to varying degrees, of chemical and (especially!) biological weapons, as well as some of the more destructive conventional weapons.

But once you get to the level of weapons that can be used to target individuals, the "danger from accident" argument ceases to be credible, especially because the danger at that point is no greater than the danger posed by accidental misuse of many other things that we use in our daily lives (e.g., automobiles). At that point, you're left with intentional misuse of the weapon, but the danger to the general population of that is such that all weapons that are useful for defense of self or for preservation of liberty would qualify as being dangerous in that respect, and as a result the "danger from intentional misuse" argument becomes invalid on its face.

truthseeker
07-29-2012, 11:20 PM
Funny that the founding fathers made the constitution and most of the anti gun folk seem to honor and respect every other amendment except for the second.

They seem to think that they are soooo much more intelligent then the men who wrote the Constitution.

I would bet back in the 1700's these same anti-gun people existed and they were looked down upon just as they are today as unpatriotic "know it alls"!!

I am proud to be an American and it is time for California to join it!

IPSICK
07-29-2012, 11:45 PM
So, what makes a military person any more responsible with such arms? A bullet doesn't fly any "safer" just because one wears a certain uniform.

If anyone can get equal training, what's the difference? (Or to put it another way, if you can trust someone with a semi auto, why can't you trust that same person with full auto?)

I never implied any of the things related to the questions you ask. The semi auto limitation is only something I feel is reasonable. Just as is a limitation on explosives. Honestly, I don't trust a soldier with full auto anymore than I trust a normal citizen with full auto. It's similar to the feeling I get I see armed security at shopping centers. I actually trust them less than I would someone with an LTC. I've seen them shoot at the ranges and it's darn scary.

ap3572001
07-30-2012, 8:54 AM
[QUOTE=IPSICK;9027892]I never implied any of the things related to the questions you ask. The semi auto limitation is only something I feel is reasonable. Just as is a limitation on explosives. Honestly, I don't trust a soldier with full auto anymore than I trust a normal citizen with full auto. It's similar to the feeling I get I see armed security at shopping centers. I actually trust them less than I would someone with an LTC. I've seen them shoot at the ranges and it's darn scary.[/QUOTE +1. I agree 100%. Sometimes I go to a public range and observe how most people shoot. Also observe the range safety habits. NOT TOO GOOD. Not good enough for full auto.

Wiz-of-Awd
07-30-2012, 9:00 AM
...When the founders created the 2nd Amendment, they didn't envision the disparity of force between the armed citizenry and the government growing so large.

One wonders what sort of amendment they would have crafted had they been able to anticipate this particular development...

Perhaps this is the very root of the debate between the antis and the "pro" 2A crowd.

What would they have done or written differently? Would our 2A be different than it is?

Are the "antis" trying to answer and address your questions with new policy and regulations?

This question, asked by you, validates in a way the thinking and legislation that the antis are endlessly trying to impose upon our society.

A.W.D.

jwkincal
07-30-2012, 9:24 AM
For a revolution to succeed in the U.S., it wouldn't merely need to survive as the Afghans, Iraqis, etc., have. It would have to win. That's because the objective of a revolution is to overthrow the sitting government.

I don't understand why so many people don't seem to get this hugely important distinction.

How is the Fed gonna pay for a protracted campaign with a broken tax base and a completely unsustainable debt construct?

Freedom isn't free, but neither is despotism. You think China will lend money to the US gov't under those conditons? You think that Europe will be happy to lend a hand or send troops of their own? You think all those oppressed citizens of the US who are too afraid to fight are gonna rush out and buy US Govt bonds because they LOVE their Big Brother?

Surviving is winning. It's classic siege warfare, fought from within.

saint7
07-30-2012, 10:17 AM
Funny that the founding fathers made the constitution and most of the anti gun folk seem to honor and respect every other amendment except for the second.

They seem to think that they are soooo much more intelligent then the men who wrote the Constitution.

I would bet back in the 1700's these same anti-gun people existed and they were looked down upon just as they are today as unpatriotic "know it alls"!!

I am proud to be an American and it is time for California to join it!

I think come this election year we can send a message... VOTE OUT:

Boxer
Feinstein
Pelosi
Yee- who I can not believe needs a translator here in the US... is he on loan from china or what?

oni.dori
07-30-2012, 12:09 PM
From reading the responses to the thread about 10 round magazines, I was shocked about how many people are fine with with ten round magazines. Our founding fathers wanted their progeny to have an escape route. From their experience with the British seizing their arms and gun powder, they wanted to make sure that the citizens could use threat of violence against a corrupt government. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, or target practice, it has to do with keeping evil at bay. So give me 20, 30, 40 and 100 round mags. And I will never be happy pushing a tool into a bullet button to release a ten round mag. :chris:Just my two cents.

While deterrence and reversal of tyranny was a major part of it, you are wron about hunting. Try intended to be guaranteed for ANY use that does not infringe upon the rights of another, including hunting. If you knew anything about the history of gun control in Britain, you would understand that hunting was a large part of it, and was spilling over in to the Colonies. With hunting being the ONLY way some people could survive, it was subsistence for them. Limiting that was literally handing them a death sentence. On top of that, what was the gun almost every revolutionary patriot grabbed to fight the British with? That's right, their HUNTING rifle.
Just because hunting was not the MAIN focus or motivation of the Second Amendment when it was written, does not mean t was not part of it whatsoever.

kcbrown
07-30-2012, 12:51 PM
Perhaps this is the very root of the debate between the antis and the "pro" 2A crowd.

What would they have done or written differently? Would our 2A be different than it is?

Are the "antis" trying to answer and address your questions with new policy and regulations?


No, not really. The reason, I think, is that they don't adhere to one of the core principles that the founders of the country seemed to adhere to reasonably well: preservation of liberty.

The founders jumped up and down about how important liberty is. While the 2nd Amendment might look a bit different in that it might address the weapons that, if accidentally misused, pose a huge risk to life and limb, they almost certainly would not address the rest except perhaps to explicitly protect them.



This question, asked by you, validates in a way the thinking and legislation that the antis are endlessly trying to impose upon our society.


No, I'm afraid it does not, because the legislation that the antis are attempting to impose upon our society does not in any way reflect the original thoughts of the founders of the country.

kcbrown
07-30-2012, 12:55 PM
How is the Fed gonna pay for a protracted campaign with a broken tax base and a completely unsustainable debt construct?


In case you haven't noticed, the Fed can print money at will, by directly buying government bonds. This isn't like the old system where the dollar was directly redeemable for gold. In the current system, and very much unlike for the rest of us, there is no risk to the Fed, no downside, of the borrower (the U.S. government) failing to "repay" the "loan", not because there isn't a chance of that happening, but because there are no consequences to the Fed whatsoever in the event that happens.

And I guarantee that the people who run the Fed will continue to feed the U.S. government for however long it takes, because the U.S. government is the means that those people use to project power throughout the world.

PhalSe
07-30-2012, 1:15 PM
The line should be the point where the risk to life and limb from accidental misuse of a given type of weapon can be shown to be intolerable. That's quite easy to show with nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, because a single mistake will take out hundreds of thousands of people in one go. The same is true, to varying degrees, of chemical and (especially!) biological weapons, as well as some of the more destructive conventional weapons.

But once you get to the level of weapons that can be used to target individuals, the "danger from accident" argument ceases to be credible, especially because the danger at that point is no greater than the danger posed by accidental misuse of many other things that we use in our daily lives (e.g., automobiles). At that point, you're left with intentional misuse of the weapon, but the danger to the general population of that is such that all weapons that are useful for defense of self or for preservation of liberty would qualify as being dangerous in that respect, and as a result the "danger from intentional misuse" argument becomes invalid on its face.

I agree completely with you, but i am fearful that it is far to easy to use this logic to set the bar very low. An Anti would easily argue that accidental use of a machine-gun or even a semi-auto could kill multiple people and so they should not be protected. Even given the rediculousness of said claim an Anti Legislator or Judge would readily accept such logic to justify infringing the rights of everyone.

Dantedamean
07-30-2012, 1:22 PM
I agree completely with you, but i am fearful that it is far to easy to use this logic to set the bar very low. An Anti would easily argue that accidental use of a machine-gun or even a semi-auto could kill multiple people and so they should not be protected. Even given the rediculousness of said claim an Anti Legislator or Judge would readily accept such logic to justify infringing the rights of everyone.

I draw the line at biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. I believe if a civilian wants to own a tank they should be able to. I know that will never happen though.

kcbrown
07-30-2012, 1:32 PM
I agree completely with you, but i am fearful that it is far to easy to use this logic to set the bar very low. An Anti would easily argue that accidental use of a machine-gun or even a semi-auto could kill multiple people and so they should not be protected. Even given the rediculousness of said claim an Anti Legislator or Judge would readily accept such logic to justify infringing the rights of everyone.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, a 2nd Amendment that does not restrict itself in any way as to the arms protected has done nothing to protect FA arms and other weaponry in common military use.

There is nothing on this green earth that will keep a staunchly anti-gun person from being staunchly anti-gun. Such people are determined to disarm the population because they believe, beyond all reason, that a disarmed society is a necessity of "utopia", and no number of examples to the contrary (e.g., Jamaica (http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/persp/persp012.pdf)) will dissuade them.


That said, everything would depend on how such an Amendment is worded. If, for instance, it says that the only weapons that are unprotected are the ones for which a single accidental misuse is more likely than not to cause the death of 100 people or more in the most densely populated areas, then that would certainly wind up protecting all full-auto arms (as well as hand grenades and other small area effect weapons), while taking off the table larger area effect weapons.

SickofSoCal
07-30-2012, 1:36 PM
From reading the responses to the thread about 10 round magazines, I was shocked about how many people are fine with with ten round magazines. Our founding fathers wanted their progeny to have an escape route. From their experience with the British seizing their arms and gun powder, they wanted to make sure that the citizens could use threat of violence against a corrupt government. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, or target practice, it has to do with keeping evil at bay. So give me 20, 30, 40 and 100 round mags. And I will never be happy pushing a tool into a bullet button to release a ten round mag. :chris:Just my two cents.

Thank you for making this thread.

As an aside, I like to refer to the original organic document of our nation: the Declaration of Independence:



"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


and...



"...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."



http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Wiz-of-Awd
07-30-2012, 1:37 PM
...I believe if a civilian wants to own a tank they should be able to. I know that will never happen though.

At least not until the DMV creates a table of registration fees for tanks and other heavy or armored vehicles.

A.W.D.

jwkincal
07-30-2012, 1:37 PM
In case you haven't noticed, the Fed can print money at will, by directly buying government bonds. This isn't like the old system where the dollar was directly redeemable for gold. In the current system, and very much unlike for the rest of us, there is no risk to the Fed, no downside, of the borrower (the U.S. government) failing to "repay" the "loan", not because there isn't a chance of that happening, but because there are no consequences to the Fed whatsoever in the event that happens.

And I guarantee that the people who run the Fed will continue to feed the U.S. government for however long it takes, because the U.S. government is the means that those people use to project power throughout the world.

But when the dollar is worth 1/200th of a Euro, how useful will that be to folks trying to use the Fed to project power in the global community?

kcbrown
07-30-2012, 1:42 PM
But when the dollar is worth 1/200th of a Euro, how useful will that be to folks trying to use the Fed to project power in the global community?

The entire military budget right now is 500 billion a year or so. There is $1 trillion in circulation right now. To deflate the currency to that degree would take 200 years.

No, the revolution would be long over, one way or another, before major inflationary effects occurred.

adampolo13
07-30-2012, 2:02 PM
I heard someone recently say "the best thing about the United States is that we get to overthrow the government every two years." He was refering to the fact we get to vote for new representatives every two years. The problem, I told him, is that it doesn't matter if they are democrate or republican now. There are no true statesmen anymore, they are all in it for themselves and the deep pockets of their creditors.

When the time comes for the people to take back this great land from the over-powerful government, it will be bloody to say the least. I say when because the average age of democracy is approximately 200 years. We are at that stat point on the chart where democracy fails. You can say we aren't a democracy we are a republic, but for my arguments sake its a mute point. The United States is really close to the edge of implossion.

The reality is that the government is TOO BIG TOO FAIL and must continue to sustain itself. The problem is there isn't anything left. The people are broke and cannot support the government and the government is running out of ways to keep the people happy. What is going to happen when the government can't hand out unempolyeement, welfare, free health-care, the list goes on and on.

When you've got nothing to lose you have everything to win. This is where the 2A comes in. The founding fathers knew that it was a very REAL possiblity that governement would become tyrannical and that the people would eventually get desperate enough to fight. The founders wanted to ensure the people had the means to do so.

People can argue that an armed resistance would be defeated by tanks, and warthogs etc. But I think back to the 1700's when the British had perfect armies and cannons, and all the firepower in the world and the tiny 13 colonies had their "hunting riffles" The government had a much better equiped military than the colonies but the colonies still won. While the 2A address the right to bear arms, the 2A is about more than guns, its about reminding people, no matter what the odds, they can defeat tyranny!

donw
07-30-2012, 2:26 PM
At least not until the DMV creates a table of registration fees for tanks and other heavy or armored vehicles.

A.W.D.

you can own a tank...the armament must be de-milled (or removed) and you have to go thru a procedure but you can get one...if you can afford it...:TFH::cool::rolleyes:

jwkincal
07-30-2012, 2:41 PM
The entire military budget right now is 500 billion a year or so. There is $1 trillion in circulation right now. To deflate the currency to that degree would take 200 years.

No, the revolution would be long over, one way or another, before major inflationary effects occurred.

But the value of the US dollar is predicated on the capacity of the US economy to produce enough revenue to pay back the creditors from whom all that money has been borrowed; that capacity will be spectacularly diminished as soon as armed rebellion is extant within the borders.

And how long do you suppose that the fat, happy statist subjugates are going to support the government when taxes go up up up and handouts disappear? How loyal are the troops going to be as the orders become increasingly immoral because the Fed is feeding the insurgency with it's (necessary) fiscal policies? I've already opined on the tactical considerations (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=6612662#post6612662).

The fact is, if enough folks stand up, the outcome is a certainty.

It is, however, exceedingly unlikely that such a call would be heeded; particularly given the incremental loss of freedom against the pathologically short attention span of the US public. A proper revolution would succeed for sure, it is just impossible to start one in any foreseeable permutation of 21st century American culture.

LexLuther
07-30-2012, 10:22 PM
See my signature line...Enough said.

kcbrown
07-30-2012, 11:57 PM
But the value of the US dollar is predicated on the capacity of the US economy to produce enough revenue to pay back the creditors from whom all that money has been borrowed; that capacity will be spectacularly diminished as soon as armed rebellion is extant within the borders.


You're not following the whole economic argument.

First, the downside of failing to repay a loan is made manifest only if it can be enforced. What is the downside of the U.S. government failing to pay back its loans to (non-Fed) creditors? The answer is none: they'll be SOL.

Now, normally that would mean that the U.S. government would be SOL because it wouldn't be able to borrow any more money. But with the Fed in place, that is not the case at all. The Fed, because it is both the currency issuer and a lender all in one neat little package, can "lend" money to the U.S. government all day long and it simply does not have to care whether the government "repays" the "loans" because those loans cost the Fed nothing to begin with. The Fed itself has no obligations to anyone else.


Secondly, the value of the dollar is chiefly related to the amount of it that's in circulation. Right now, the reason we're seeing such a big problem economically is because a lot of the loans that exist in the private sector are now being repaid because too much was borrowed, and that's deflationary. But aside from loans (which are inflationary) and loan paybacks (which are deflationary), currency is a conserved quantity -- if someone pays someone else for their services, that someone else now has the money in question. So the only thing that winds up mattering for this exercise is where the money is ultimately going. And the answer to that is: everywhere.


So in the end, the only question is going to be how long it takes before the economy gets back on its feet. With the arrangement the government and Fed have with each other, they can wait it out for as long as it takes. And that's because the taxes the government collects aren't a function of how much money is out there, but how much is actually changing hands in a given interval of time. The government, therefore, needn't worry about increasing taxes as long as it and the Fed are willing to keep the game going. And they are -- no questions asked.



And how long do you suppose that the fat, happy statist subjugates are going to support the government when taxes go up up up and handouts disappear?


Who says taxes are going to go up? That presumes that the loans must be paid back from taxes. In reality, what will happen is that the government will simply borrow more money in order to pay back existing obligations, repeatedly, for as long as it takes. With the Fed essentially printing that money and acting as the lender all at the same time, the U.S. government will be able to pay back all of its non-Fed obligations and therefore maintain the appearance of legitimacy, and can keep this up indefinitely. Ironically, that will maintain the strength of the currency as a "reserve" currency, as the currency's strength is related to the confidence that the government which backs it will pay back its obligations. And the Fed will keep the game going because the U.S. government is the mechanism through which those who operate the Fed project power. They will never give that up. They will keep the U.S. government propped up as long as they possibly can.



How loyal are the troops going to be as the orders become increasingly immoral because the Fed is feeding the insurgency with it's (necessary) fiscal policies? I've already opined on the tactical considerations (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=6612662#post6612662).


Those considerations fail to account for the fact that the necessary support structures are exactly what the military will secure for itself first. What, you think the military hasn't already thought through this particular problem to the Nth degree? I fully expect they have full-on simulations of this that have proven instructive in terms of what is likely to work and what isn't.



The fact is, if enough folks stand up, the outcome is a certainty.


Well, sure ... unless most of the military remains sided with the government.



It is, however, exceedingly unlikely that such a call would be heeded; particularly given the incremental loss of freedom against the pathologically short attention span of the US public. A proper revolution would succeed for sure, it is just impossible to start one in any foreseeable permutation of 21st century American culture.

With the exception of the prospects of success of a revolution, I fully agree with this. I don't see it starting at all. Not under the conditions we currently see and the population we currently have.

And, frankly, that's a good thing. Revolution is a messy, bloody, expensive, perilous, and gravely uncertain business. It rarely works in the real world (just look at Syria to see how well they're doing over there. Libya succeeded only because of significant help from the outside with respect to the no-fly zone, without which Gaddafi would have walked all over the revolutionaries there).

jwkincal
07-31-2012, 8:02 AM
So we agree that this debate is entirely academic... we should probably also look into agreeing that neither of us is qualified in the appropriate academic field and leave it at that :)

Uxi
07-31-2012, 8:17 AM
I definitely consider it an infringement. It's just one of the least onerous of California's many infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

kcbrown
07-31-2012, 10:31 AM
So we agree that this debate is entirely academic... we should probably also look into agreeing that neither of us is qualified in the appropriate academic field and leave it at that :)

I'm not an economist, but I play one on the internet! :)

oni.dori
07-31-2012, 12:48 PM
I agree that the 2nd Amendment was created to fight against a tyrannical government but when the time comes, the U.S. government will not be using our own military against us because there will be so many deserters within the ranks. They know that and that is why they have been training the U.N. troops along with foreign troops to take over when a civil unrest ever happens. All communications will be severed (unless you're a HAM operator) and it would be very difficult (but not impossible) to gather up and fight for a common cause.

The very core of our governmental structure will fall apart (when an event of a U.N. military takes over) and there will be a military coup d'etat of a massive proportion. There will be sovereign states that will drop out of the union and will become they're own republics and will use their army to fight against the tyrannical government. The general populace who are armed will become a volunteer militia that can be trained by the states who dropped out of the union and will fight together with the army. I just pray to God that it doesn't come to this.

Essentially this. A lot of people hold the false notion that it would be some
Hollywood-esque style revolution if it ever came to that; thus bad evil army of the oppressive government that follows its master's every command without question, against the struggiling and oppressed masses. That is not in any way what it would be. In reality, about 80-90% of the military is on "our" side, and takes their oath very seriously, not to mention are ardent 2A supporters. In addition to that, close to the same percentage of LEO's would do the same. In reality, the odds would be VERY stacked against an oppressive government of that was ever to happen.

kcbrown
07-31-2012, 1:21 PM
Essentially this. A lot of people hold the false notion that it would be some
Hollywood-esque style revolution if it ever came to that; thus bad evil army of the oppressive government that follows its master's every command without question, against the struggiling and oppressed masses. That is not in any way what it would be. In reality, about 80-90% of the military is on "our" side, and takes their oath very seriously, not to mention are ardent 2A supporters. In addition to that, close to the same percentage of LEO's would do the same. In reality, the odds would be VERY stacked against an oppressive government of that was ever to happen.

Yes, well, that very much depends on their perception of the rightness of the revolutionaries' cause, does it not?

Now, what perception do you think they'll have when nearly all the information they will be getting will be telling them that the revolutionaries are a bunch of lunatics who are trying to take over the country? It's not like there won't be actions on the part of the revolutionaries which could easily be seen in that light. Revolution means killing people (politicians and other high-value targets, especially) and destroying government infrastructure, and it means being the aggressor (since revolt is not a purely defensive action against aggression but is, instead, a violent response to tyranny). Such actions are going to be regarded as the work of terrorists unless the rightness of the cause is self-evident. And since when has such a thing ever been self-evident in the real world?

Why would you believe that the members of the military would have any reason to doubt their commander-in-chief, especially given the actions involved?


I'll put it a different way: do you think anyone in the U.S. military would have hesitated to kill Timothy McVeigh if they had the chance and were given the order to do so? Think about that very, very carefully, because many of the very things we discuss here were the motivations behind McVeigh's actions.


Being a U.S. citizen isn't nearly the deterrent in the real world that you think it is.

Wherryj
07-31-2012, 2:15 PM
The bigger question is, as a teacher of US history, do you know how to spell second amendment? :p

Sorry, just messin' with you. I too was surprised by all the people in that thread bringing up hunting and recreational shooting as the only reasons for owning firearms.

He teaches history not spelling. :cool:

oni.dori
07-31-2012, 7:47 PM
Yes, well, that very much depends on their perception of the rightness of the revolutionaries' cause, does it not?

Now, what perception do you think they'll have when nearly all the information they will be getting will be telling them that the revolutionaries are a bunch of lunatics who are trying to take over the country? It's not like there won't be actions on the part of the revolutionaries which could easily be seen in that light. Revolution means killing people (politicians and other high-value targets, especially) and destroying government infrastructure, and it means being the aggressor (since revolt is not a purely defensive action against aggression but is, instead, a violent response to tyranny). Such actions are going to be regarded as the work of terrorists unless the rightness of the cause is self-evident. And since when has such a thing ever been self-evident in the real world?

Why would you believe that the members of the military would have any reason to doubt their commander-in-chief, especially given the actions involved?


I'll put it a different way: do you think anyone in the U.S. military would have hesitated to kill Timothy McVeigh if they had the chance and were given the order to do so? Think about that very, very carefully, because many of the very things we discuss here were the motivations behind McVeigh's actions.


Being a U.S. citizen isn't nearly the deterrent in the real world that you think it is.

Yes, I understand that. I was talking in a situation where civil Rights and Liberties that are guaranteed by the BOR were stripped away, or the BOR itself bein eviscerated or repealed; or the nation itself turned in to a socialist/communist, or some other form of totalitarian establishment. IMO those would really be the only justifiable enough reasons to revolt at this time, and are pretty blatantly obvious and difficult to disguise (though not necessarily impossible).
While I have no doubt in my mind that any service person in the military at that time would have LOVED to take out TMcV, you mud also understand that those people are just average Americans as well. They watch the se news, haunt the same forums, and read the same articles we do, and obtain te same infoatio. From the same sources that help shape out opinions on the world as well. They don't just have one single super-secret news source provided by the fed.gov that is their mandatory only source of news & information. Having a good portion oft friends and family be military/LEO, I have been lucky enough to get a unique insight on their viewpoints on such subjects through discussion of current events an movements like the Tea Party & Occupy.
I know they would in no way (as a majority) participate in a revolt of people that was initiated simply because they believed that an elected official wasn't born in the US; but I have no doubt in my mind that it would be very similar to that in a case like I mentioned above.

kcbrown
07-31-2012, 9:39 PM
Yes, I understand that. I was talking in a situation where civil Rights and Liberties that are guaranteed by the BOR were stripped away, or the BOR itself bein eviscerated or repealed; or the nation itself turned in to a socialist/communist, or some other form of totalitarian establishment. IMO those would really be the only justifiable enough reasons to revolt at this time, and are pretty blatantly obvious and difficult to disguise (though not necessarily impossible).


They are blatantly obvious and difficult to disguise from where we stand right now. It doesn't follow that such will be the case when the time comes.

You're failing to account for the massive adaptability people have. Opinions on liberty change over time. If you don't believe me, just look at all the things we can't do right now that were possible only 100 years ago. Indeed, I have little doubt that the founders of the country would be scratching their heads and wondering why we haven't already revolted. Remember, too, that for the vast majority of history, the vast majority of people were servants and slaves to despots and dictators. If you were to go by history, you might be tempted to conclude that people naturally gravitate towards servitude and that liberty is an anomaly. And you would not be unreasonable in concluding that.


Indeed, look at the very history of Supreme Court jurisprudence, and you'll see numerous occasions where it has decided by fiat that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says. Look at what's happening to the 4th and 5th Amendments even now. Look at what has happened with 14th Amendment jurisprudence. Look at what has happened with the 9th and 10th Amendments. The Constitution has already been gutted and the vast majority of the people in the country don't even realize it!



While I have no doubt in my mind that any service person in the military at that time would have LOVED to take out TMcV, you mud also understand that those people are just average Americans as well.


So what? The same will be true of the people in the U.S. military who will find themselves confronted with an insurrection. They will be ordinary people confronting an extraordinary situation. And what do people do when they find themselves in unusual circumstances that they don't understand? They follow orders.

Guess what their orders will be?



They watch the se news, haunt the same forums, and read the same articles we do, and obtain te same infoatio. From the same sources that help shape out opinions on the world as well. They don't just have one single super-secret news source provided by the fed.gov that is their mandatory only source of news & information.


The internet (and the forums and other methods of communicating with one another that it brings forth) is the shining beacon here. It is the one thing that I think injects hope into the picture.

But nonetheless, the majority of people still get most of their news, and give greatest weight to, the mass media. Why else do you think Fast and Furious has been nothing but a small diversion for most people so far? Hell, many people don't even know about it, even now.




I know they would in no way (as a majority) participate in a revolt of people that was initiated simply because they believed that an elected official wasn't born in the US; but I have no doubt in my mind that it would be very similar to that in a case like I mentioned above.

Here's the problem: if the population as a whole isn't convinced that the government needs to go, what makes you think people in the U.S. military will believe differently? You all but admit above that they won't.

And that's the entire problem. Revolutions are extraordinary. Revolutionaries are the outliers in any society. The founding fathers weren't average people -- they were people with a cause they believed in and the charisma, conviction, wherewithal, and (most important of all) environment that made it possible for them to convince others to join their cause.

Such people today would have to fight against the mass media, something the founders never had to really contend with. And that means they would fail to convince enough people that the country really does need to go to war with its government. And without that, the U.S. military would crush such an effort like a bug, its members all too happy to fire on U.S. citizens who were participating in that effort -- just like they would have done to McVeigh if given the chance and the orders. Indeed, I fully expect that at the first hint that such people were succeeding in their efforts to convince others, they would be silenced one way or another. Most certainly they would be if they were right.


So, again, it all comes down to perception, but today, perception is more or less centrally controlled, and it has been since not long after the advent of broadcast television. Why do you think our Presidential candidates get continuously worse every election cycle? It's because they ultimately don't answer to us, they answer to those who make their election possible: those who run the mass media, and those who influence elections in various ways.

spdtiger
07-31-2012, 9:53 PM
From reading the responses to the thread about 10 round magazines, I was shocked about how many people are fine with with ten round magazines. Our founding fathers wanted their progeny to have an escape route. From their experience with the British seizing their arms and gun powder, they wanted to make sure that the citizens could use threat of violence against a corrupt government. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, or target practice, it has to do with keeping evil at bay. So give me 20, 30, 40 and 100 round mags. And I will never be happy pushing a tool into a bullet button to release a ten round mag. :chris:Just my two cents.


you Hit it right on target man, the other night I watched west coast gangster rapper Rapper Ice T concluded also that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or target practice but has to do with keeping evil at bay and he stated that one piece of evil from the government is the police,to which he has a long standing hatred for, Enough said man bravo on this piece.

rexblaine
07-31-2012, 11:58 PM
you Hit it right on target man, the other night I watched west coast gangster rapper Rapper Ice T concluded also that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or target practice but has to do with keeping evil at bay and he stated that one piece of evil from the government is the police,to which he has a long standing hatred for, Enough said man bravo on this piece.

It was amazing how eloquent Ice T was in that interview, how he shut down the anti2A vibe of the mainstream media, and put it plain and simple - we have guns to protect us from those (bad) cops.

This past year has been a learning experience for me, and this one article does a good job of explaining the underlying motives of the Government.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1393

They did it with prohibition and it basically created the power behind the FBI and made a bunch of cronies rich.

Unfortunately I'm wide awake to the fact that the culture of corruption in America is and has been alive and thriving under our naïveté for a very long time. Take a look at who owns the large gun manufacturers, which hedge funds have major stakes in Ruger and Colt etc. These companies will continue to make guns, but after a ban they'll be able to fleece a much larger profit from less product.

What business mogul doesn't like that?

walmart_ar15
08-01-2012, 12:24 AM
If I remember the history correctly, the 1776 Revolution was not won by the colonist alone. It was won when the French landed, and the British felt it was way too costly to continue if they had to fight a professional French army. Later during War of 1812, with the French occupied with their own Revolution, British pretty much walked right up to the White House and burned it to the ground.

Founder also did not want a Fed standing army, since they fear it will be used to crush its own people. National defense was handle by calling the State Militias to arm. It was later changed by Congress to have a volunteer/draft military then later changed to a professional military. People in the military are trained, drilled, brainwashed to follow orders, what ever it maybe. Some may judge for themselves but majority will just follow orders.

Based on BOR, 2A, should a citizen own equal arms as our Fed government including WMD? Of course they should, our Founding fathers would want the "People" to have the same means of defense against the Fed. And they would also expect the "People" to have the moral standing, resources, and technology to protect the subject arms from misuse. In practice, owning a nuclear or chemical/biological weapon is a moot point as no private entity can afford the $500billon/yr DoD budget.

Syria is a test case on how well a populace can revolt against a well established government with centralized power authority and professional military.

Just 0.02.

scrat
08-01-2012, 12:38 PM
cry about your poor little bullet button and cry about having to use a 10 round or less magazine lets pass out the kleenex.

Now grow up.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Problem with this statement is it doesnt say what arms. just says the right of the people to keep and bear arms. So if you dont support your local gun clubs and organizations like calguns. You may find yourself with a single shot shotgun and a single shot rifle and a 6 shot revolver and thats all legally you can own. as the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms does not say what arms. Thats why liberals piece meal at the 2nd amendment and we have laws that limit us to 10rounds and using a bullet button.

HaloFire
08-01-2012, 7:04 PM
Based on BOR, 2A, should a citizen own equal arms as our Fed government including WMD? Of course they should, our Founding fathers would want the "People" to have the same means of defense against the Fed. And they would also expect the "People" to have the moral standing, resources, and technology to protect the subject arms from misuse. In practice, owning a nuclear or chemical/biological weapon is a moot point as no private entity can afford the $500billon/yr DoD budget.



I agree with walmart on the should part, as to the will it ever happen? Highly doubtful. But I do believe the original intent was to put the populace on par with the military.

please examine:


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.


the right to keep = possession
and bear != furry mammals that eat salmon

bear defined http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Bear

1. To hold up; support.
2. To carry from one place to another; transport.
3. To carry in the mind; harbor: bear a grudge.
4. To transmit at large; relate: bearing glad tidings.
5. To have as a visible characteristic: bore a scar on the left arm.
6. To have as a quality; exhibit: "A thousand different shapes it bears" (Abraham Cowley).
7. To carry (oneself) in a specified way; conduct: She bore herself with dignity.
8. To be accountable for; assume: bearing heavy responsibilities.
9. To have a tolerance for; endure: couldn't bear his lying.
10. To call for; warrant: This case bears investigation.
11. To give birth to: bore six children in five years.
12. To produce; yield: plants bearing flowers.
13. To offer; render: I will bear witness to the deed.
14. To move by or as if by steady pressure; push: "boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past" (F. Scott Fitzgerald).


probably means crew served weapons are out of the question e.g. tanks, mortars, nuclear missiles, etc.

as for a M2? M240G? M19? probably not but it would be cool

Saym14
08-01-2012, 7:13 PM
Amen!!!!

vincewarde
08-02-2012, 3:27 PM
Hmmmm. Really?

Yes, really IF - and this a big IF - the uprisings were widespread and in response to crystal clear violations of the constitution. Every service member I have ever met has taken pride that they do not swear allegiance to a person or party, but to the Constitution.

For instance, if a president tried to get troops to occupy states he was likely to loose and prevent them from voting - or if he tried to do the same thing with other forces - I don't think the regular military would fire on state forces if they moved to open the polls. Ditto if a president tried to stay in office past his or her term. Same thing if a president declared a "state of emergency" right before an election in order suspend freedom of speech.

On the other hand, if they were faced with a simple rebellion, I am sure the military would have no problem putting it down by whatever means necessary.

vincewarde
08-02-2012, 4:03 PM
Ultimately, the 2nd Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - effectively mean what the Supreme Court says they mean.

Clearly, the founders wanted to provide robust protection in the 2nd Amendment - but the right is clearly not unlimited. Justice Scalia's legal philosophy is exactly how the constitution should be correctly interpreted. First, what does the text say? Second, how was the right originally interpreted?

On Fox News Sunday, he pointed out that there are limits to the 2nd Amendment right. Pointing to the text, he expressed the opinion that in order to be protected, the arm must be "bearable" - in other words, man portable. No ICBMs or cannons. He also pointed out that there were laws against "affrighting" - which basically was the carrying of a weapon for the purpose of frightening people (i.e. menacing or brandishing) - and that these were considered to be compatible with the 2nd Amendment.

To his comments I would add that the text does make it clear that one purpose of the right is militia service (not the National Guard - but a self armed citizen militia) - therefore it must be read as protecting the right of citizens to own the basic military personal weapon of the day.

Today, that means a semi-auto rifle with a removable magazine. One can argue for full auto, but I think that a semi is close enough to enable someone to serve in a citizen militia should the need arise.

What about magazines? Well, I think we are on solid ground when it comes to mags used by the military in personal weapons. Since the standard is now 30 rounds, it would be hard to justify a lower limit. On the other hand, if the military doesn't use 100 round drums in M16s and M4s , they probably are not protected.

Just my .02 worth.

kcbrown
08-02-2012, 6:30 PM
Yes, really IF - and this a big IF - the uprisings were widespread and in response to crystal clear violations of the constitution. Every service member I have ever met has taken pride that they do not swear allegiance to a person or party, but to the Constitution.


And yet, it was the military which executed a U.S. citizen on foreign soil (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8799295/Same-US-military-unit-that-got-Osama-bin-laden-killed-Anwar-al-Awlaki.html) without said person having been availed of due process first, on the orders of the President.

So you'll forgive me if I take the claims of the people you speak of with a huge grain of salt.



On the other hand, if they were faced with a simple rebellion, I am sure the military would have no problem putting it down by whatever means necessary.

This, combined with the above, should make it clear where the allegiance of many (most?) members of the U.S. military really lies: with their commander in chief and with the government.

HBrebel
08-02-2012, 6:38 PM
... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It is plainly an unalienable right, just as we have that right to live! There are no exclusions, options, interpretations, derivations, regulations, or any other form of control.

agreed 100%

HBrebel
08-02-2012, 6:40 PM
A lot of you are rightly upset because you can see something that I feel a lot here have failed to verbalize.

Giving away even a small part of the second amendment is spitting in the face of the founding fathers and stealing from future generations.

The second amendment is something we can't bargain with because it isn't ours to bargain with. The second amendment belongs to all of us, past present and future.

It's my duty to the country to protect the rights that my parents and grandparents fought for.

Anyone who fails to protect those rights is selling me out along with those future generations.

we'll said

HBrebel
08-02-2012, 6:46 PM
does anyone really believe armed resistance to the US/state/county/city government would be successfull? how many AR/firearms owners would actually "Mount up" against any governmental body? there would have to be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to successfully overtake just the state of california. if that happened...they would call in the national guard or US military; anyone feel like taking on the USMC or the 82nd Airborne?

who determines what is "Tyrannical" insofar as governments are concerned? what institute would recoconize the US government or the state of california governement as being "TYRANNICAL"

how would you LEGALLY invoke the second amendment as being exercisized against a tyrannical government? i cannot see the SCOTUS, or a court on ANY level, declare ANY governmental entity as being "TYRANNICAL".

i don't think that: "They want to impose an 10 round limit on our AR's magazines" as a valid reason.

don't misunderstand me...i DO support the 2A, NO BANS/limits on magazines, AR's or AK's, etc...but...we've seen the results of armed rebellions, too, Syria being a current one.

this 'war' must be won with the ballot box NOT the ammo box...we, at this point in time, could NOT win with the ammo box.

not advocating violent rebellion at all but if it came to that, I think quite a few men would do the right thing. and let's not forget that we have many friends in the U.S. military, reserves, and law enforcement. Those people understand that the oath they took is to protect our constitution and the people. Not to obey the orders of some sociopath. Why do you think they want to ban online sales of bulk ammo? surely not over some shootings scattered throughout the years. It is because they know we have the natural right to own and use firearms, and they fear that.

otalps
08-02-2012, 6:47 PM
And yet, it was the military which executed a U.S. citizen on foreign soil (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8799295/Same-US-military-unit-that-got-Osama-bin-laden-killed-Anwar-al-Awlaki.html) without said person having been availed of due process first, on the orders of the President.

So you'll forgive me if I take the claims of the people you speak of with a huge grain of salt.


I'm missing your point? It was the military that contributed to 258,000 some odd casualties on American soil without due process. Though just the same as that terrorist scum bag they were at war with the US.

kcbrown
08-02-2012, 7:12 PM
I'm missing your point? It was the military that contributed to 258,000 some odd casualties on American soil without due process. Though just the same as that terrorist scum bag they were at war with the US.

Precisely. The Civil War was probably an illegal action on the part of the U.S. because the southern states attempted to secede and were forcibly prevented from doing so. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the U.S. government to prevent that from happening. Secession is not the same as insurrection, so Section 8 of the Constitution does not apply.

That's not to say that the reason for the southern states' attempt to secede was consistent with the principles of the country -- slavery is quite obviously an affront to liberty (seeing how it's essentially the antithesis of it) -- but that fact does not suddenly make the government's actions consistent with the Constitution. Quite the opposite: the power to control secession is a power that is not granted to the government by the Constitution, nor is the power of secession prohibited to the states by it, so quite clearly it's a power that falls under the 10th Amendment and, therefore, is a Constitutional power of the states.


As for this business of being "at war" and all, if you take your thinking to its logical conclusion, it follows that any person can be denied due process, habeus corpus, etc., simply by the government "declaring war" on that person. And since the amendments to the Constitution came after the Constitution itself (the very term "amendment" means change), it follows that the Amendments supersede the Constitution itself and, thus, the right to due process is one that cannot be denied through any power granted by the pre-Amendment Constitution. Not to mention that Congress has not formally declared war on Al Qaeda in any case (it has only authorized military action against it). And even then, the Constitution does not authorize deprivation of due process -- the wartime exception only applies to being held to answer for capital crimes through a grand jury indictment (the wartime exception makes is possible for a person to be so accused without said accusation coming from a grand jury), and said indictment does not eliminate the due process requirement.


So again: the U.S. military has shown that it will follow its commander-in-chief in violation of the very Constitution it claims to uphold. And in the face of that, claims by servicemen that their oath is to the Constitution and not to the commander in chief or the government itself must be looked upon with extreme skepticism.

walmart_ar15
08-02-2012, 7:17 PM
What about magazines? Well, I think we are on solid ground when it comes to mags used by the military in personal weapons. Since the standard is now 30 rounds, it would be hard to justify a lower limit. On the other hand, if the military doesn't use 100 round drums in M16s and M4s , they probably are not protected.


Well, they do use belt fed that has more than 100 rds. ;)

BTW, just because ours may not, many other countries' military do use 100 rd drums in their rifles.

vincewarde
08-02-2012, 7:28 PM
And yet, it was the military which executed a U.S. citizen on foreign soil (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8799295/Same-US-military-unit-that-got-Osama-bin-laden-killed-Anwar-al-Awlaki.html) without said person having been availed of due process first, on the orders of the President.

OK let's get real here. In case you haven't noticed, we are in a war. I would prefer that it would have been formally declared, but the reality is that we are in a war.

This is not the first time this has happened. Large numbers of US citizens served in the German military during WW2 - they were taken back to Germany by their parents.

Of course, most of these folks were low ranking troops serving directly on the front lines - but let's create a hypothetical: What if one of these US citizens became a high ranking commander. He's not on the battlefield, he's behind the lines. We want to take this guy out, because he is contributing to the German war effort. Would anyone expect the military to either affect an arrest for treason or do nothing? Would you expect the military to pass on killing this guy because he is a US citizen? To be consistent, you would have to say, "Yes, the military must try to arrest him no matter what the cost".

My answer is different. He is in the chain of command of a military/terrorist organization with which we are at war. He is therefore a legitimate target.

Should we capture him if possible? You bet, we need the intel! If we then want to treat him as anything more than a POW, is he entitled to the full protection of US law - absolutely. Any of the prisoners we have taken in the war on terror must be accorded full constitutional rights. Methods that were used to obtain information from them may make it impossible to convict many of them.

However.......... as POWs they may be held until the end of hostilities. We already have all we need to hold them.

I guess the short answer is that there is no comparison between nailing a terrorist overseas and suppressing an uprising against a clearly unconstitutional action such as I described. They are different in substance and the number of troops required. I have no doubt that a rouge president might find a few high ranking officers to go along with him - but he would need a lot more than that.

If you don't believe me, I suggest you read up on what happened in Rumania when troops were ordered to suppress an uprising that the secret police could not handle. The first night, the commander refused to give the order to fire, so the secret police commander shot him. His second in command gave the order and hundreds were shot. The next night thousands more showed up in opposition to the government. This time, when ordered to fire, the troops turned their guns on the secret police. Within 48 hours the army had eliminated all resistance by the secret police and the dictator who had ruled for decades was dead.

If the army in a communist dictatorship reacted this way - how much more likely is it that US troops will remain true to their oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the constitution.

kcbrown
08-02-2012, 7:33 PM
OK let's get real here. In case you haven't noticed, we are in a war. I would prefer that it would have been formally declared, but the reality is that we are in a war.


Really?

Says who?

Ask yourself why the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war if being "at war" is not predicated upon such a declaration.

It surprises me that you're engaging in this kind of doublethink. That's not something I would have expected of you.


And in any case, see my immediately prior comment. The Constitution does not authorize removal of due process in times of war.


Indeed, the Constitution does not even give Congress the power to authorize military action on the part of the President except as implied by a declaration of war!





I guess the short answer is that there is no comparison between nailing a terrorist overseas and suppressing an uprising against a clearly unconstitutional action such as I described. They are different in substance and the number of troops required. I have no doubt that a rouge president might find a few high ranking officers to go along with him - but he would need a lot more than that.


The only difference is the specific grievance of the party targeted by the government. In both cases, the government would be "at war" with the organization to which the people so targeted belong. And in both cases, the government's response is outside of the authorization of the Constitution (actually, that's not strictly true -- the Constitution authorizes the Congress to call up the militia to suppress insurrections, and since we're talking about an insurrection in one of these cases, Congress could attempt to get the militia to suppress that insurrection. But since the insurrection in question is a response to blatantly Unconstitutional and tyrannical acts, they might have a hard time pulling that off. Most certainly, however, the Constitution does not authorize Congress to use the military for such duty).

Were that not so, the government could trivially eliminate due process for anyone merely by claiming to be "at war" with that person.



If you don't believe me, I suggest you read up on what happened in Rumania when troops were ordered to suppress an uprising that the secret police could not handle. The first night, the commander refused to give the order to fire, so the secret police commander shot him. His second in command gave the order and hundreds were shot. The next night thousands more showed up in opposition to the government. This time, when ordered to fire, the troops turned their guns on the secret police. Within 48 hours the army had eliminated all resistance by the secret police and the dictator who had ruled for decades was dead.

If the army in a communist dictatorship reacted this way - how much more likely is it that US troops will remain true to their oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the constitution.

This is a good point, and does give hope. And yet, one need only look in other countries, such as Syria and Libya, or indeed most examples of armed rebellion throughout history, to see that such hesitation on the part of the military is very much an exception, not the rule.

vincewarde
08-02-2012, 7:54 PM
Precisely. The Civil War was probably an illegal action on the part of the U.S. because the southern states attempted to secede and were forcibly prevented from doing so.

I'm sure you remember who started the Civil War, right? Lincoln wanted to enter into negotiations with the Southern States - they flatly refused. Tensions built over Ft. Sumter and Lincoln was presented with the choice to reinforce the fort or withdraw. He chose to do neither. He attempted to resupply the post with food and that prompted the Confederate forces to fire on the fort - beginning the Civil War.

In retrospect, it would have been smarter for the South to have open negotiations with Lincoln - at a minimum it would have given them the political advantage of being the side that was attacked - which could have really helped those opposed to the war in the North. Instead, they were the first to resort to force.

As for the Constitution, the counter argument is that if the states had a right to secede one would expect that to be spelled out with a proscribed method. There was none. One must also remember that many of the states at this point were formed after the Louisiana purchase in areas bought and paid for by the central government. Indeed, they were effectively chartered by that government.

Given the above facts, it is easy to see why so many had such a hard time deciding what was the right and honorable thing to do. The issue was far from crystal clear - that's why Lee paced all night when offered command of the Union army, before deciding to resign and offer his sword to the South.

The bottom line: This is a far cry from our current army consenting to be used in an unconstitutional way to, for instance, keep a president in power.

vincewarde
08-02-2012, 8:07 PM
This is a good point, and does give hope. And yet, one need only look in other countries, such as Syria and Libya, or indeed most examples of armed rebellion throughout history, to see that such hesitation on the part of the military is very much an exception, not the rule.

In both Syria and Libya large numbers of troops did and are defecting - in some cases taking their heavy weapons with them. In other cases it is obvious that troops are not willing to suppress the people - if the government could rely on all it's troops, the uprising would have been put down long ago. Remember that these troops were conditioned to defend a dictatorship - the US military is not so conditioned. I would argue that they would be much less likely to support a dictatorship.

As for a declaration of a war be Congress - guess what? Congress has authorized the use of force. They did not call it a declaration of war - but we have not done that since WW2. Effectively Congress has authorized the use of force under the war powers act. It is a war in everything but name.

kcbrown
08-02-2012, 8:08 PM
I'm sure you remember who started the Civil War, right? Lincoln wanted to enter into negotiations with the Southern States - they flatly refused. Tensions built over Ft. Sumter and Lincoln was presented with the choice to reinforce the fort or withdraw. He chose to do neither. He attempted to resupply the post with food and that prompted the Confederate forces to fire on the fort - beginning the Civil War.


Except that in time of peace, that makes the actions of those who started the shooting illegal and, thus, the proper response was a police action.



As for the Constitution, the counter argument is that if the states had a right to secede one would expect that to be spelled out with a proscribed method.


No, that does not follow. More precisely, if it did follow, then the same thing would be true of all state powers, and the 10th Amendment would become devoid of meaning.

No, secession is a power just like any other state power (nothing in the Constitution limits state powers to those that they would have over their citizens).



There was none. One must also remember that many of the states at this point were formed after the Louisiana purchase in areas bought and paid for by the central government. Indeed, they were effectively chartered by that government.


That is irrelevant. The Constitution is plain on these things. That which the Constitution does not explicitly authorize the federal government to do is reserved by the states or the people. Despite the Supreme Court's abysmal jurisprudence in this regard, the 9th and 10th Amendments were not put there for kicks.



Given the above facts, it is easy to see why so many had such a hard time deciding what was the right and honorable thing to do. The issue was far from crystal clear - that's why Lee paced all night when offered command of the Union army, before deciding to resign and offer his sword to the South.

The bottom line: This is a far cry from our current army consenting to be used in an unconstitutional way to, for instance, keep a president in power.

They are quite different, yes, but the Constitution is clear on both of these things regardless.

kcbrown
08-02-2012, 8:20 PM
In both Syria and Libya large numbers of troops did and are defecting - in some cases taking their heavy weapons with them. In other cases it is obvious that troops are not willing to suppress the people - if the government could rely on all it's troops, the uprising would have been put down long ago. Remember that these troops were conditioned to defend a dictatorship - the US military is not so conditioned. It would argue that they would be much less likely to support a dictatorship.


That's a pretty good point. I guess only time will tell. Actually, I really hope that time doesn't tell. What we're talking about is something that I hope never happens.



As for a declaration of a war be Congress - guess what? Congress has authorized the use of force. They did not call it a declaration of war - but we have not done that since WW2. Effectively Congress has authorized the use of force under the war powers act. It is a war in everything but name.

Congress can't grant itself extra-Constitutional powers through legislation! It can declare war. It cannot authorize the use of the military, even if it has passed a law that says it can, because that is not a power that was given it by the Constitution. It can pass laws, but laws were understood to be legal constructs governing the citizenry and governing the conduct of the government within the confines of those powers granted under the Constitution.

Congress does not legitimately have power that is not expressly granted to it by the Constitution, period.

otalps
08-02-2012, 8:50 PM
Ask yourself why the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war if being "at war" is not predicated upon such a declaration.


We did declare war. The Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2002. The Constitution does not lay out how such a declaration has to be made.

kcbrown
08-02-2012, 9:44 PM
We did declare war. The Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2002. The Constitution does not lay out how such a declaration has to be made.

That's true, and I hadn't quite thought of it that way. It's a good point. But be careful. This means any authorization of military use by Congress is a declaration of war.

It means that, in general, the United States has been "at war" for 21 of the past 48 years. It also means that we are now, essentially, permanently "at war".


Hey, if you're comfortable with the notion that the government can "declare war" on any individual or group of people and thereby legitimately declare that Constitutional protections do not apply to them, then who am I to dissuade you from that? Just realize the consequences: the government could do the same thing to the entire population of the United States and, by the reasoning being employed here, legitimately strip every single person in the United States of his Constitutional protections.

You can see where this is going. It's precisely the means by which the government could "legitimize" martial law (via authorization of military force against the people of the United States).

wjc
08-02-2012, 9:47 PM
Technically, we've been at war continously since 1953.

We never signed a Peace Treaty with North Korea.

otalps
08-02-2012, 10:49 PM
That's true, and I hadn't quite thought of it that way. It's a good point. But be careful. This means any authorization of military use by Congress is a declaration of war.

It means that, in general, the United States has been "at war" for 21 of the past 48 years. It also means that we are now, essentially, permanently "at war".


Hey, if you're comfortable with the notion that the government can "declare war" on any individual or group of people and thereby legitimately declare that Constitutional protections do not apply to them, then who am I to dissuade you from that? Just realize the consequences: the government could do the same thing to the entire population of the United States and, by the reasoning being employed here, legitimately strip every single person in the United States of his Constitutional protections.

You can see where this is going. It's precisely the means by which the government could "legitimize" martial law (via authorization of military force against the people of the United States).

You know who was comfortable with this same idea? Jefferson and Madison, look at how both Barbary wars were authorized by Congress.

kcbrown
08-03-2012, 12:25 AM
You know who was comfortable with this same idea? Jefferson and Madison, look at how both Barbary wars were authorized by Congress.

I doubt Jefferson and Madison envisioned shredding Constitutional protections under the guise of being "at war".