Do you really understand the second ammendment?

[victor1echo]

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. Just my two cents.

[Redchevyman]

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]

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?

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]

Exactly. "shall not be infringed" seems pretty clear to me.

[Lugiahua]

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]

Most of the people I know know view their firearms as tools for protection against crime, tools for hunting and recreational target shooting.

[odysseus]

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]

[gunnerstuff]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.