Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: 2nd Amendment?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Cary, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    66

    Post imported post

    The 2nd Amendment is less about self defense and more about protection from an oppressive government, both domestic or foreign.

    With all the advancements in weaponry in the last 80 years, does it make sense that U.S. citizens would be having to fight so hard to retain the right to own such relatively primitive weapons as today's handguns and long arms?

    Let's say for instance, as it was over two hundred years ago, if my neighborhood had to band together to fend off such an oppressive government, even if every household were "willing" to do so, and they are armed with say "legal" semi automatic AR-15s. How effective could they possibly be against the weaponry of today's government militaries?

    It just seems kind of odd that here in 2009 the question of owning such "relatively" ineffective firearms is the forefront. I'm not saying each household should own an array of Patriot missiles, but at the same time, given the true meaning of the 2nd amendment, owning basic firearms should be uncontested.

    Of course, I will have to admit, I was raised where owning firearms is more a responsibility of a household rather than a mere right to do so.

    For instance, "arms" is not limited to firearms. Is the 1958 "Switchblade Act" not in violation of the 2nd amendment? Is the 1934 "Federal Firearms Act", severely regulating and effectively outlawing the ownership of machine guns not in violation of the 2nd amendment?

    In the very least, every household should have the quintessential shotgun hanging over the fireplace mantel. Why is it such a question and controversy?

  2. #2
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    Agenda driven misinterpretation? Thats my guess.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Mungo wrote:
    In the very least, every household should have the quintessential shotgun hanging over the fireplace mantel. Why is it such a question and controversy?
    Quite simply, because the American electorate allows it to be so.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    Here's a thought:

    Maybe they realize the 2nd amendment is about protecting against tyrannical government. Maybe they understand that full auto weapons and high capacity semi-auto rifles would be deadly in the hands of citizens that were trained to use them. Maybe they know that gun control has no effect on crime.

    Suppose they wish to tighten the hold of government on the people. Suppose they wanted to end the rights of free speech, and all of the protections afforded to help keep the innocent out of prison, and off of death row.

    What do you suppose would be their first step in that plan?

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Slayer of Paper wrote:
    Here's a thought:

    Maybe they realize the 2nd amendment is about protecting against tyrannical government. Maybe they understand that full auto weapons and high capacity semi-auto rifles would be deadly in the hands of citizens that were trained to use them. Maybe they know that gun control has no effect on crime.

    Suppose they wish to tighten the hold of government on the people. Suppose they wanted to end the rights of free speech, and all of the protections afforded to help keep the innocent out of prison, and off of death row.

    What do you suppose would be their first step in that plan?

    Hmmmm. You know. You might be onto something. Especially if there is a sort of new world government cooking. They would have toguess that some a certain percentage of Americans might not come to that party.

    I guess I've been focusing on the Brady bunch angle and pandering too much to really considerthispotentiality. Thanks for bringing it up.

    Edited to Add: Oh, and before anybody starts poo-pooing me about a new world government, take a look at what ishappening on the world stage. Once the financial systems are under one centralized directorate, even a little bit, does it even matter if there is a formally declaredworld government?If you control the money on that scale, who gives a damn about who writes the rest of the rules?

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Slayer of Paper wrote:
    Here's a thought:

    Maybe they realize the 2nd amendment is about protecting against tyrannical government. Maybe they understand that full auto weapons and high capacity semi-auto rifles would be deadly in the hands of citizens that were trained to use them. Maybe they know that gun control has no effect on crime.

    Suppose they wish to tighten the hold of government on the people. Suppose they wanted to end the rights of free speech, and all of the protections afforded to help keep the innocent out of prison, and off of death row.

    What do you suppose would be their first step in that plan?
    That's basically it.

    They don't care that small arms (full auto or not) are relatively ineffective against a large military with armor and air power (the idea is highly disputable though, look at Iraq and other guerrilla wars). They just want them all gone. When they're all gone, they won't needto waste military forceswith armor and air power, or even full auto weapons. All they'll need is a police force with simple handguns.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Cary, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    66

    Post imported post

    That's precisely my point. The popular 1911 design has been around almost 100 years. Why are citizens disallowed the same technology upgrades? I'm busting my head against the wall to keep 100 year old technology while governments have been allowed to upgrade without limit.

    In a real SHTF scenario, the likelihood of me being able to even empty a magazine is quickly dissipating before being overpowered.

    I guess what I'm saying I'd like to see is the proponents of the 2nd amendment be more aggressive. Much like the US fighting the war on terror on foreign soil, preventing it from coming to the US, the 2nd Amendment proponents should be advancing the "frontline" of the right to bear arms to newer "battlefields" and allow older semi-automatic firearms to remain in a "green zone". Allow citizens to own and carry the new tactical automatic knives, allow law abiding citizens easier access to fully automatic weapons.

    I guess I'm just frustrated as many of you probably are. With the events of the past week, and the expectations of the current administration, I'm getting prepared for a whole new round of anti 2nd amendments attempts. To me it seems preposterous to regulate or even further limit citizen's rights (actually a responsibility) to defend themselves.

    In both shooting rampage situations last week, had average citizens shouldered their responsibility to self defense, both shooters would have been disabled before carrying out their intent of mass destruction. When I see events take place like last weeks events, I do not consider more regulation on firearms. What I see is more law abiding citizens bearing the responsibility to ensure this country stays safe and free.

    Most of the time I feel compelled to carry concealed. Which means, especially with warmer weather, I have to carry a smaller concealable weapon which is generally a smaller caliber with a much smaller capacity. I need regulation or deregulation that allows me to carry a more powerful weapon responsibly and openly in more places.

    I know, in this forum, I'm just preaching to the choir. But now, more than ever, I feel as if I'm just banging my head against the wall. I don't feel empowered to protect myself or my family.



  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Mungo wrote:
    That's precisely my point.

    Trust me, I feel your pain 100% and understand exactly where you're coming from. Here's the problem though, the chipping away at the real purpose of the second amendment started long ago and it isn't going to stop until we're left with nothing in your hands that shoots but our dicks. The way it goes, we lose ten battles, then win one and call it a "victory." The problem is thatwe'realways taking nine steps back. As everyoneisbeginning to recognize, peaceful means don't work. Aseveryone is also just beginning to recognize, neither will violent means. So what happens is the chipping away continues because the peaceful means accomplish next to nothing, yet no restrictions they ever pass are worth a rebellion. This is why you never have to worry about an outright gun grap. It's totally unnecessary. We just ban assault weapons, everyone complies because it isn't worth it to fight over just that. Then we ban this and we ban that and we over tax this and we over tax that... and before you know it the only thing you're allowed to own is a $9,000 (after tax, licensing, inspection, psychological evaluation, 8 background checks, 5 safety classes, and all other applicable fees) is a ball and cap revolver that is required to be kept in a safe, plasma cut in 10 piece that, in the event ofa buglury, you can weld/glue/epoxy back together and then you can tell the buglury you have a gun... but don't threaten him or you'll go to jail, or show it to him, hint at using it, touch it, look at it, etc. When that day comes people are going to wake up and say, "Alright men, NOW it's worth it to fight" and they'll all grab the shovels they bought on the black market (because those are illegal now too) and charge the capital building. :quirky

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •