PDA

View Full Version : Lets delete the 2nd amendment, we don't need it anymore...BAN GUNS



pefjr
01-21-2011, 02:22 PM
We don't allow hunting down Natives for their land anymore. We don't have slaves and uprisings to worry about. Are you afraid of the boogieman? Let's grow up and become a civilized Nation.

This should get Perldog some exercise. He looks unchallenged today, not in the least tired and not one bruise from tossing libs around for two weeks.

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 02:24 PM
I think I know of an orifice where you can stick all those banned guns... :)

pefjr
01-21-2011, 02:29 PM
http://www.hawaii-travel.cn/wp-content/uploads/hawaii-2.jpg (http://www.hawaii-travel.cn/wp-content/uploads/hawaii-2.jpg)
This one?

gary porter
01-21-2011, 02:31 PM
Lets prohibit alcohol , there won't be anymore drinking or drinking and driving, right?

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 02:34 PM
http://www.hawaii-travel.cn/wp-content/uploads/hawaii-2.jpg (http://www.hawaii-travel.cn/wp-content/uploads/hawaii-2.jpg)
This one?

yes, (among "others") but be sure to carry them all the way in...

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 02:35 PM
Lets prohibit alcohol , there won't be anymore drinking or drinking and driving, right?

good idea...we'll save the world and all will praise us

pefjr
01-21-2011, 03:14 PM
yes, (among "others") but be sure to carry them all the way in...Don't worry we will get you a replacement toyhttp://www.411toys.com/toygun/td2012-1sm.jpg
and a blow doll of Bo. Can't post it, peer censorship.

paladin
01-21-2011, 03:15 PM
Oh, Sure...ban guns....Now that you addle brained, booze swillin', nasty smellin', round eyes think that you have all the land you wanna ban guns from the rest of us....
Worry......we are secretly hoarding ammo and machine guns and grenades and rocket launchers......we build casinos and sell booze. When we get all your money and you're drunk and broke then we'll push you jerks back into the sea.

TimH
01-21-2011, 03:26 PM
Now is that a nice thing to say Chuck? :-)

The round eyes that are here now arent the same ones that were here before. Although their morality probably is a lot worse.
Its still better than the Chinese.

bobbys
01-21-2011, 03:39 PM
Oh, Sure...ban guns....Now that you addle brained, booze swillin', nasty smellin', round eyes think that you have all the land you wanna ban guns from the rest of us....
Worry......we are secretly hoarding ammo and machine guns and grenades and rocket launchers......we build casinos and sell booze. When we get all your money and you're drunk and broke then we'll push you jerks back into the sea..

http://s1.hubimg.com/u/209660_f520.jpg

perldog007
01-21-2011, 03:47 PM
I'm afraid this won't give me much of a workout, Bud. Perhaps the most eloquent modern quote on the relevance of the Second Amendment comes from the Kennedy who could rescue people in the water, the skipper of a certain P.T. boat and the subject of "Profiles in Courage".

But first this quote from Andrew Ford which is a bit dated ( more states now allow this..) but still relevant :
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy. However, four out of five US murders are committed in the other half of the country: so who's crazy?"
-- Andrew Ford

To wit:
... By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the 2nd amendment, will ever be a major danger to our Nation, the amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the 2nd Amendment will always be important.

That quote and this one
The wave of the future is not the conquest of the world by a single dogmatic creed but the liberation of the diverse energies of free nations and free men. lend me some stubborn hope that we will wrest the world's greatest political party back from the grip of the progressive movement yet. _rant_over_ :D

perldog007
01-21-2011, 03:49 PM
http://www.hawaii-travel.cn/wp-content/uploads/hawaii-2.jpg (http://www.hawaii-travel.cn/wp-content/uploads/hawaii-2.jpg)
This one?


That requires medical attention right away, if anyone else has an orifice that looks like that don't delay - see a Doctor TODAY!

PhaseLockedLoop
01-21-2011, 03:52 PM
Hmmm. Learn something new every day. Which states allow "anyone" to buy and carry a gun without a permit?

perldog007
01-21-2011, 04:04 PM
Hmmm. Learn something new every day. Which states allow "anyone" to buy and carry a gun without a permit?

It's not New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Wisconson or Illinois if that helps. Google much? I think the term anyone is used in a general sense, taking for granted that persons prohibited by federal firearms laws by the GCA of 68 are excluded.

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 04:26 PM
That requires medical attention right away, if anyone else has an orifice that looks like that don't delay - see a Doctor TODAY!

maybe just too much orange koolaid

gary porter
01-21-2011, 04:29 PM
Hmmm. Learn something new every day. Which states allow "anyone" to buy and carry a gun without a permit?
There are two types of carry when talking firearms, open and concealed.
Vermont and Alaska are the only ones I know of that have true concealed carry without permits. In Alaska there is also a concealed carry permit which requires a class where you learn the laws and safe handling, get finger printed and demonstrate proficiency. A very good class but not required.

oznabrag
01-21-2011, 04:36 PM
.

http://s1.hubimg.com/u/209660_f520.jpg


On the other hand, the word 'tonto' means 'idiot', or 'empty-headed laughingstock' in Spanish.

nw_noob
01-21-2011, 04:39 PM
I'm curious pefjr, in your firearm free country, would the police still be armed and armored like proper storm troopers?

PhaseLockedLoop
01-21-2011, 04:56 PM
There are two types of carry when talking firearms, open and concealed.
Vermont and Alaska are the only ones I know of that have true concealed carry without permits. In Alaska there is also a concealed carry permit which requires a class where you learn the laws and safe handling, get finger printed and demonstrate proficiency. A very good class but not required.

Yeah, that's what I thought, but I'm not up to date. Michigan has become a "shall issue" state with respect to concealed carry, but you have to take a class and get a special permitt to do it. To even buy a gun, you have to get a purchase permit, go buy the gun, be fingerprinted, have a background check, and take whatever gun you buy to the police, and be issued an ownership permit. There was some talk about abandoning this system, but I don't know if it bore fruit. I do know that those who have a carry permit don't have to get the purchase permit to buy more guns, but they do have to register whatever guns they buy.

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 04:59 PM
I'm curious pefjr, in your firearm free country, would the police still be armed and armored like proper storm troopers?
I'd like to think not... but... FAT CHANCE! (especially if the Left had control of government)

pefjr
01-21-2011, 05:01 PM
I'm curious pefjr, in your firearm free country, would the police still be armed and armored like proper storm troopers?Haven't thought that far ahead, let's look at Japan, Canada, Australia, and Britain and see what the need would be.

gary porter
01-21-2011, 05:04 PM
How about we get more realistic and look at say Switzerland..? Firearm policies and crime rate.

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 05:05 PM
Haven't thought that far ahead, let's look at Japan, Canada, Australia, and Britain and see what the need would be.

don't forget to count in the train station killings by cops...ask a Brasilian

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 05:33 PM
The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution is a quaint provision that bears almost ZERO relevance to modern American experience.

The Founders expected the U.S. Army to be a perpetually militia-based citizen organization akin to the modern Swiss Army. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland?wasRedirected=true) They never imagined our 21st Century volunteer, professional standing Army.

Firearms should not be prohibited. On the contrary, we should abolish the volunteer professional army, substitute a Swiss-type system of universal conscription, and require regular training of the resulting national militia as envisioned in the 2nd Amendment.

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 05:37 PM
The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution is a quaint provision that bears almost ZERO relevance to modern American experience.

The Founders expected the U.S. Army to be a perpetually militia-based citizen organization akin to the modern Swiss Army. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland?wasRedirected=true) They never imagined our 21st Century volunteer, professional standing Army.

Firearms should not be prohibited. On the contrary, we should abolish the volunteer professional army, substitute a Swiss-type system of universal conscription, and require regular training of the resulting national militia as envisioned in the 2nd Amendment.

that Swiss idea might not be bad (at first blush) but the people in power or who think they will be in power won't up with it, put

StevenBauer
01-21-2011, 05:38 PM
Let's not be extreme, Bud, how about we just ban handguns.


Steven

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 05:40 PM
Let's not be extreme, Bud, how about we just ban handguns.


Steven

why (in your own words)?

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 05:47 PM
that Swiss idea might not be bad (at first blush) but the people in power or who think they will be in power won't up with it, put

You might be surprised at who dislikes the idea. Ex-Colonel Bob Smalser abhors the idea of a return to a conscript army.

And I think you also miss my point which is: the 2nd Amendment was intended to promote a citizen/conscript army rather than a professional army. It is about the National Defense of a Democratic Republic rather than the self-defense of individual citizens.

StevenBauer
01-21-2011, 05:48 PM
why (in your own words)?

Because we don't need them.


Steven

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 05:49 PM
You might be surprised at who dislikes the idea. Ex-Colonel Bob Smalser abhors the idea of a return to a conscript army.

the conscript army he remembers was an army of fools... perhaps it doesn't have to be either/or

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 05:50 PM
Because we don't need them.


Steven

maybe you should make a list of things "we" don't need

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 05:58 PM
the conscript army he [Bob Smalser] remembers was an army of fools...

IS THAT RIGHT?

There are a lot of veterans on this Forum, ranging across the political spectrum, who will likely take great offense at your statement.

Shame on you. A prime example of engaging mouth before engaging brain.

oznabrag
01-21-2011, 06:05 PM
The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution is a quaint provision...

Tom, I can't agree with you.

Practically ALL of the Founders wrote to the effect that an armed populace was the final barrier against tyranny. They were aware of ~10,000 years of tyranny to that point, and there's no reason to believe that tyrants have come to love an unarmed peasantry any less in the interim.

Those who would argue that an armed citizenry is no match for the might of the present-day US Army need only to visit Iraq, to have those blinders lifted.

I am NOT saying that armed insurrection is any sane answer to our present governmental malaise, but I AM saying that an armed and determined populace can not be subdued.

Exterminated? Yes.

Subdued? Not a chance.

The missing link is the RESPONSIBILITY of the people to forkin' VOTE. If the nation sinks into political chaos and civil war, it will be because we didn't take responsibility for our government.

I support mandatory voting, but the 'War on Guns' will bear much the same fruit as the Wars on Drugs and Terrorism.

McMike
01-21-2011, 06:08 PM
Because we don't need them.


Steven

Ohhhh boy, Steven, now you've gone and said it. Good luck . . hope you recover in time for the WBS.:D

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 06:13 PM
IS THAT RIGHT?

There are a lot of veterans on this Forum, ranging across the political spectrum, who will likely take great offense at your statement.

Shame on you. A prime example of engaging mouth before engaging brain.

I'm a vet of that era...the statements stands...it is a generality of course...I remember guys in boot camp who shouldn't have been trusted with a shovel...they didn't last long as a rule...our volunteer force is better vetted and trained these days and not brought in by the equivalent of press gangs...think about it instead of trying to play gotcha! it's not either/or!

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 06:20 PM
Tom, I can't agree with you.

That's OK. ;)


Practically ALL of the Founders wrote to the effect that an armed populace was the final barrier against tyranny. They were aware of ~10,000 years of tyranny to that point, and there's no reason to believe that tyrants have come to love an unarmed peasantry any less in the interim.

Yes. But I think we all tend to endow the Founders with a prescience they did not possess. What "tyrant" did the Founders particularly have in mind? Great Britain. And they were not wrong. Two generations later England invaded the U.S. and burned down the White House.


Those who would argue that an armed citizenry is no match for the might of the present-day US Army need only to visit Iraq, to have those blinders lifted.

We agree. Which is why I would support the abolishment of our current volunteer/professional army and the establishment of a Swiss-style citizen/militia army which is more in line with the Founder's conception.


I am NOT saying that armed insurrection is any sane answer to our present governmental malaise, but I AM saying that an armed and determined populace can not be subdued.

We agree. And a citizen/militia not only provides a strong national defense... it also discourages irresponsible foreign military adventures.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-21-2011, 06:22 PM
We don't need to delete anything. The belief by gun owners that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution expressly protects their hobby is based on NRA propaganda.
Rozumis"?

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 06:23 PM
We don't need to delete anything. The belief by gun owners that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution expressly protects their hobby is based on NRA propaganda.
Rozumis"?

whose propaganda do you worship?

StevenBauer
01-21-2011, 06:23 PM
... it also discourages irresponsible foreign military adventures.

Now that would certainly be a good thing.



Steven

McMike
01-21-2011, 06:25 PM
We don't need to delete anything. The belief by gun owners that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution expressly protects their hobby is based on NRA propaganda.
Rozumis"?

Ya, read the federalist papers . . . the language is not so ambiguous in how it elaborates upon what our founding fathers were talking about when they said a right to from a militia. What's funny is the gun lobby here likes to use it as a certification of their argument; it kinda backfires a little, not in a big way, but enough.

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 06:35 PM
here ya go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm
http://www.weaponscombat.com/zip-pipe-and-pen-guns

StevenBauer
01-21-2011, 06:39 PM
What are the penalties for those homemade guns in some of the developed countries that have sensibly banned handguns, Phillip?



Steven

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 06:40 PM
I'm a vet of that era...the statements stands...it is a generality of course...I remember guys in boot camp who shouldn't have been trusted with a shovel...they didn't last long as a rule...


"Ours (our army) is composed of the scum of the earth - the mere scum of the earth."

"I don't know what effect these men will have upon the enemy, but, by God, they frighten me."

-- Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

KM Bever
01-21-2011, 06:43 PM
Oznaburg,


I agree with you completely, except for "mandatory voting". I want an informed electorate. Enough idiots vote, I'm talking about people who just check the box without knowing who or what they are voting for. You can't have a informed electorate without the 1st amendment and you can't have a 1st amendment without the 2nd amendment. With the 1st and 2nd amendment you can't protect the Constitution.

However, the 2nd amendment is not the only amendment under assault. The "Fairness Doctrine" is being assaulted. I not afraid of today's leaders be they progressives or conservatives. But with amendments changing the 1st and second amendments removes protection of our Constitution that our Founding Father gave us. I'm afraid of the leaders that may be chosen in the future. Our leaders swear to protect the constitution. For example, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." For it is the Constitution that protects us.

"Hitler did not create Germany's gun control laws of 1928, but he used them and strengthen them in 1938. I'm not going to say that it would have changed history, but....... it might have.

Charlton Heston said many times, "I'll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands!" I would add to that "but if you come for my guns, I'll be glad to give you the bullets one at a time, before you get my guns".

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 06:53 PM
What are the penalties for those homemade guns in some of the developed countries that have sensibly banned handguns, Phillip?



Steven

none if you don't get caught...

BTW it is illegal to make and SELL guns without a manufacturers license...it is not illegal to make your own...so far

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 06:55 PM
How many times do you people have to say the same things, over and over, before you get the idea it's all been said, over and over?

Come up with some new and refreshing arguments, or come up with some new topics. This horse is long dead.

So if this is so boring why do you bother to open the freaking thread?

Let me guess... After 5:00pm and a few glasses of wine it seems fun to pipe up and bitch.

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 06:56 PM
How many times do you people have to say the same things, over and over, before you get the idea it's all been said, over and over?

Come up with some new and refreshing arguments, or come up with some new topics. This horse is long dead.

partisans only listen to themselves and their like-minded "friends"

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 06:57 PM
So if this is so boring why do you bother to open the freaking thread?

Let me guess... After 5:00pm and a few glasses of wine it seems fun to pipe up and bitch.

insult...you're down to insult..."your momma wears army shoes"?

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 06:58 PM
none if you don't get caught...

Duh.... :rolleyes:

That is a truism with regard to the commission of any crime... No?

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 06:58 PM
Duh.... :rolleyes:

That is a truism with regard to the commission of any crime... No?
it has a point for those willing to think

nw_noob
01-21-2011, 07:00 PM
I would support the abolishment of our current volunteer/professional army and the establishment of a Swiss-style citizen/militia army which is more in line with the Founder's conception.



We agree. And a citizen/militia not only provides a strong national defense... it also discourages irresponsible foreign military adventures.

This is a good idea.

I think that we'd be much better off as a country if we cut the size of our traditional military drastically, and increased the ranks of both our national guard and air national guard. It would be much cheaper, but more importantly, citizens could pressure the Governors to reject requests for troops if they objected to foreign campaigns. The entire war machine would be subject to the will of the people again.

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 07:02 PM
insult...you're down to insult..."your momma wears army shoes"?

I'm wondering why Donn -- or anyone for that matter -- would bother to open a thread and post a comment to a discussion they consider to be boring? An egotistic need to hear the sound of their own voice?

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 07:04 PM
This is a good idea.

I think that we'd be much better off as a country if we cut the size of our traditional military drastically, and increased the ranks of both our national guard and air national guard. It would be much cheaper, but more importantly, citizens could pressure the Governors to reject requests for troops if they objected to foreign campaigns. The entire war machine would be subject to the will of the people again.

Amen.

Do you think Phillip Allen considers your post to represent "thought," "knee-jerk liberalism," or "PCness?"

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 07:05 PM
I'm wondering why Donn -- or anyone for that matter -- would bother to open a thread and post a comment to a discussion they consider to be boring.

I might...of course no one is discussing Tom Montgomery at the moment so I'm not sure :)

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 07:10 PM
You are a funny guy, Phillip.

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 07:17 PM
You are a funny guy, Phillip.

thank you Tom...you may go back to sleep now :)

Peerie Maa
01-21-2011, 07:17 PM
Someone mentioned Hitler, should we not close this thread.
Before we do, can the advocates of the National Guard reassure me that they are less trigger happy than they were on Kent State University Campus? Not the actions of a properly trained militia, what think you?

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 07:19 PM
Someone mentioned Hitler, should we not close this thread.
Before we do, can the advocates of the National Guard reassure me that they are less trigger happy than they were on Kent State University Campus? Not the actions of a properly trained militia, what think you?

every army has done it somewhere along the way... doesn't make it okay but the winners still write the history so we'll never know what happened

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 07:24 PM
...the winners still write the history so we'll never know what happened.

Might makes right.

A fool and his money are soon parted.

A rolling stone gathers no moss.

KM Bever
01-21-2011, 07:26 PM
c
How many times do you people have to say the same things, over and over, before you get the idea it's all been said, over and over?

Come up with some new and refreshing arguments, or come up with some new topics. This horse is long dead.

There are no "new and refreshing arguments". The earth is round, water is wet, and we have the same old thing that the Founding Father gave us in the Constitution,Bill of Rights, and Federalist Papers. The isn't anything new and refreshing when you're RIGHT.

Still got my gun in my warm blooded hands, so the horse ain't dead, we're still riding on, and defending the Constitution.

nw_noob
01-21-2011, 07:26 PM
Amen.

Do you think Phillip Allen considers your post to represent "thought," "knee-jerk liberalism," or "PCness?"

Who knows... labels are getting more and more tricky to apply these days. That said, the idea is far from liberalism. It looks more like a libertarian/states' rights stance to me.

pefjr
01-21-2011, 07:27 PM
We don't need to delete anything. The belief by gun owners that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution expressly protects their hobby is based on NRA propaganda.
Rozumis"?NRA propaganda? What about USSC rulings, they count?

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 07:31 PM
NRA propaganda? What about USSC rulings, they count?

well, he THOUGHT it sounded intelligent!

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 07:31 PM
NRA propaganda? What about USSC rulings, they count?

And what do you and Phillip Allen imagine the USSC rulings indicate?

Please be specific.

Peerie Maa
01-21-2011, 07:33 PM
c

There are no "new and refreshing arguments". The earth is round, water is wet, and we have the same old thing that the Founding Father gave us in the Constitution,Bill of Rights, and Federalist Papers. The isn't anything new and refreshing when you're RIGHT.

Still got my gun in my warm blooded hands, so the horse ain't dead, we're still riding on, and stuck firmly in the wrong century.

There, fixed that for you.

KM Bever
01-21-2011, 07:46 PM
There, fixed that for you.

Just mad cause our armed peasants won, Twice.

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 07:46 PM
There, fixed that for you.

The early 21st Century U.S.A. is an entrenched conservative gun culture that will never countenance an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution as anything other than an individual right to possess a firearm.

Forget the use of language such as "a well regulated militia" and "necessary for the security of a free state." The contemporary political environment turns the meaning of the 2nd Amendment on it's head to mean "necessary to overthrow tyrannical government."

This is nutty, of course. But that is where we are.

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 07:46 PM
And what do you and Phillip Allen imagine the USSC rulings indicate?

Please be specific.

you'll need to cite which rulings you speak of

nw_noob
01-21-2011, 07:47 PM
Before we do, can the advocates of the National Guard reassure me that they are less trigger happy than they were on Kent State University Campus? Not the actions of a properly trained militia, what think you?

I think that the National Guard, made up of citizens who usually work amongst us civilians on a day-to-day basis would be less trigger happy than these guys (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/).

There's a big difference between your UPS guy, grocer, or construction worker, and a bunch of guys who are immersed in a warrior culture every day. There's much less us vs. them mentality in the former group.

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 07:47 PM
Just mad cause our armed peasants won, Twice.

embarrassed is a better word

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 07:50 PM
you'll need to cite which rulings you speak of

You first.

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 07:50 PM
I'm not sure this thread is a troll so much as a trot-line :)

pefjr
01-21-2011, 07:51 PM
And what do you and Phillip Allen imagine the USSC rulings indicate?

Please be specific. A bunch of them on the second amendment. Don't ask me how they came to such conclusions. I agree with you, the second was obviously needed at the time, but for reasons that no longer exist today.

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 07:52 PM
You first.

don't know the case number but I believe the "government" of the "District of "Columbia was found in violation of the 2nd amendment recently...

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 07:53 PM
A bunch of them on the second amendment. Don't ask me how they came to such conclusions. I agree with you, the second was obviously needed at the time, but for reasons that no longer exist today.

do you guys actually think the human animal has evolved since then?!

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 07:54 PM
I'm going to do something else for a while then come back and see if any of you Einsteins have gotten anywhere

pefjr
01-21-2011, 07:56 PM
do you guys actually think the human animal has evolved since then?!I think you are well aware of the differences and I don't have kindergarten you.

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 08:00 PM
I agree with you, the second was obviously needed at the time, but for reasons that no longer exist today.

Yes.

And we seldom agree! But never say, "Never."

StevenBauer
01-21-2011, 08:05 PM
The Constitution does not say anything about the right to own handguns. Let's ban 'em.

Steven

pefjr
01-21-2011, 08:05 PM
Yes. And we seldom agree! But, never say, "NEVER"I would say we seldom disagree, but you go violently rhetorically crazy when we do. You need to take a step back and realize when someone disagrees with you, war is not necessarily the next step.

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 08:12 PM
I would say we seldom disagree, but you go violently rhetorically crazy when we do. You need to take a step back and realize when someone disagrees with you, war is not necessarily the next step.

The part of my post involving the statement, "Just as I suspected," was an error. I intended that to be directed at Phillip Allen, not you. I deleted it but, unfortunately, not before you noticed it and responded. My bad and my apology.

KM Bever
01-21-2011, 08:15 PM
The early 21st Century U.S.A. is an entrenched conservative gun culture that will never countenance an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution as anything other than an individual right to possess a firearm.

Forget the use of language such as "a well regulated militia" and "necessary for the security of a free state." The contemporary political environment turns the meaning of the 2nd Amendment on it's head to mean "necessary to overthrow tyrannical government."

This is nutty, of course. But that is where we are.

Some citizens are "entrenched conservative gun culture" because we are entrenched in the culture of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. In the Declaration of Independence the Founding Fathers wrote "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --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" . The force of arms is the last resort of the People to alter or to abolish a tyrannical government. So from the aspect of our Declaration of Independence, the 2nd amendment is to overthrow tyrannical government. As far as hunting, shooting sports, and blowing the hell out of tin cans, that's just benefits of the 2nd amendment. If that's nutty to you, just call me a walnut.

By the way, thanks to whom ever started this thread is a fun one!!!!

Glen Longino
01-21-2011, 08:34 PM
You are a funny guy, Phillip.

Uh, Tom, do you mean like, uh, comical funny or like, uh, weird...warped...strange...bat**** crazy funny?;)

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 08:38 PM
It took a well-regulated Continental Army conscripted by a central government and trained, drilled, and lead by professional officers to defeat the "tyrannical" British government.

The memory of the minutemen at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill is a powerful image. But the fact is that such militia efforts would have gone to waste had not the colonies formed a confederation to raise and support a real army.

And it took that army eight years to defeat the British. With substantial help from the French government.

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 08:40 PM
Uh, Tom, do you mean like, uh, comical funny or like, uh, weird...warped...strange...bat**** crazy funny?;)

I'll never tell.

KM Bever
01-21-2011, 08:40 PM
The Constitution does not say anything about the right to own handguns. Let's ban 'em.

Steven

The Constitution does not say anything about the right to watch TV, Let's ban 'em. Well, sometimes that might not a bad idea with what's on TV these days.

I wonder which has killed more. guns and people or TV and minds.

JimD
01-21-2011, 09:00 PM
http://www.hawaii-travel.cn/wp-content/uploads/hawaii-2.jpg


That requires medical attention right away, if anyone else has an orifice that looks like that don't delay - see a Doctor TODAY!


No kidding. Talk about that itchy, burning sensation. That's the second worst case of hemoroids I've ever seen.

Glen Longino
01-21-2011, 09:03 PM
I'll never tell.

I know...I know!;)

KM Bever
01-21-2011, 09:03 PM
we could just stick with the plan and ban handguns what's the problem ?

The problem is that pesky old Constitution just keeps get in the road of progressives. Liberty wins, again.

JimD
01-21-2011, 09:04 PM
If I had your government I'd want to be well armed, too.

KM Bever
01-21-2011, 09:08 PM
http://www.hawaii-travel.cn/wp-content/uploads/hawaii-2.jpg




No kidding. Talk about that itchy, burning sensation. That's the second worst case of hemoroids I've ever seen.

Please God forgive me, but is that how Pelosi's chapped but felt after Novembers election?

paladin
01-21-2011, 09:12 PM
A handgun is a firearm. They tried banning of fully auto weapons and ended up licensing them. By international convention, any weapon over .38 caliber is considered an offensive weapon, .38 and below is a defensive weapon. A revolver (in my personal opinion) is a better self defense weapon than an automatic. I would favor any weapon including handguns below .38 caliber to be free from any licensing except general registration, any automatic with a magazine capacity above 13 rounds to be licensed/registered with a permit requested/required. Long arms below .50 caliber except black powder arms shall be license free....and so on...a little more thought but you get the idea.

BarnacleGrim
01-21-2011, 09:22 PM
Doesn't the second amendment give you the right to keep and bear any arm, unconditionally, past and future, big and small?

I don't see how you can have both gun control and the 2nd amendment. It's better to change the constitution, have reasonable gun control and just get on with it.

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 09:23 PM
A handgun is a firearm. They tried banning of fully auto weapons and ended up licensing them. By international convention, any weapon over .38 caliber is considered an offensive weapon, .38 and below is a defensive weapon. A revolver (in my personal opinion) is a better self defense weapon than an automatic. I would favor any weapon including handguns below .38 caliber to be free from any licensing except general registration, any automatic with a magazine capacity above 13 rounds to be licensed/registered with a permit requested/required. Long arms below .50 caliber except black powder arms shall be license free....and so on...a little more thought but you get the idea.

Interesting.

Why do you consider a revolver to be a better self defense weapon than an automatic handgun?

pefjr
01-21-2011, 09:28 PM
What I find truly interesting is, you all know I have Phillip Allen on perm ignore but you should see what this thread looks like on my browser, man that guy is like a dog with a bone when it comes to gun nut threads. It's funny to see all those "This message is hidden because Philip Allen is on your ignore list" soooo many wow.You know you peek anyway. Can't stand it, can you?:D

JimD
01-21-2011, 09:32 PM
Its hard to make the argument that international convention has any bearing on a national constitution.

KM Bever
01-21-2011, 09:33 PM
Nothing in the constitution protecting handguns specifically

Only the term "right to bear Arms", it's the same as in the 1st amendment, the Founding Fathers didn't mention pornography, all they didn't even say expression, yet still it is protected. All it says is"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Bill of Rights is very unspecific, that's what gives us our liberty. If it were specific we would lose our liberties, because we would be changing constantly it and create a document that could not be applied equally. It would become a document ruling by the whims of men instead of laws.

If look you will notice that most of the amendments are government "shall not", and the one that say the government "shall" are not the best ones. When says "shall" then we are giving up liberties.

Glen Longino
01-21-2011, 09:36 PM
Interesting.

Why do you consider a revolver to be a better self defense weapon than an automatic handgun?

I'm curious about this too!
I had revolvers for years, but went to semi-automatic ten years ago for more firepower with multiple magazines.

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 09:40 PM
I'm curious about this too!
I had revolvers for years, but went to semi-automatic ten years ago for more firepower with multiple magazines.

less reliable, lesser cartridges, generally harder to put into operation, poorer choice of bullet construction...having a box full of ammo in the handle of your pistol is way down the list of desirable atributes

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 09:46 PM
do you actually believe those magazine stories? They're SELLING stuff fer gosh sakes!

oznabrag
01-21-2011, 09:48 PM
whose propaganda do you worship?

Sit down, Phillip.

Just bite your tongue.



Wait for it.

BarnacleGrim
01-21-2011, 09:51 PM
James Madison himself feared that the bill of rights could be taken imply the absence of rights left out of the bill.

At the time I guess the breech loader was still an experimental weapon, but I'll give Madison enough credit that he could have anticipated newer and more lethal technology, and if that was his intention, he could have easily written "the right to keep and bear muzzle loaders".

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 09:51 PM
Sit down, Phillip.

Just bite your tongue.



Wait for it.

wait for what... intelligent discussion? I grow tired

KM Bever
01-21-2011, 09:52 PM
Interesting.

Why do you consider a revolver to be a better self defense weapon than an automatic handgun?

A chance to think between shots. I get more hits per shot with a revolver than an automatic. Less lead flying around.

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 09:52 PM
James Madison himself feared that the bill of rights could be taken imply the absence of rights left out of the bill.

At the time I guess the breech loader was still an experimental weapon, but I'll give Madison enough credit that he could have anticipated newer and more lethal technology, and if that was his intention, he could have easily written "the right to keep and bear muzzle loaders".
actually breach loaders had been around for a while...just not cheap enough and reliable enough for the common man

oznabrag
01-21-2011, 09:53 PM
well, he THOUGHT it sounded intelligent!

Shut up, Phillip.

Fitz
01-21-2011, 09:53 PM
Go to Lexington Green in April. You just may change your mind.

http://inlinethumb05.webshots.com/41156/2521051840054321892S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb44.webshots.com/38955/2766878570054321892S600x600Q85.jpg

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 09:53 PM
A chance to think between shots. I get more hits per shot with a revolver than an automatic. Less lead flying around.

I should have remembered to include collateral wounding...

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 09:54 PM
Shut up, Phillip.

take a long walk off a short pier

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 09:58 PM
Shut up, Phillip.

I tried to PM you but you seem to be full of something :)

BarnacleGrim
01-21-2011, 09:58 PM
I ignored Tanbark Spanker back in the day, but I peaked every time! |:(

oznabrag
01-21-2011, 09:59 PM
actually breach loaders had been around for a while...just not cheap enough and reliable enough for the common man

OK, dude. That's it.

You submit the primitive, mouthbreathing argument when the 'WTF, dude!?! Do we limit free speech to the synthesis of movable type and mounted couriers?' is more appropriate.

In fact, you seem to be quite content with the mouthbreather mentality.

Why don't you sit down and STFU for a few minutes, instead of spamming the goldonned board with your spew.

Just frookin' breathe for a second, eh?

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 10:01 PM
OK, dude. That's it.

You submit the primitive, mouthbreathing argument when the 'WTF, dude!?! Do we limit free speech to the synthesis of movable type and mounted couriers?' is more appropriate.

In fact, you seem to be quite content with the mouthbreather mentality.

Why don't you sit down and STFU for a few minutes, instead of spamming the goldonned board with your spew.

Just frookin' breathe for a second, eh?

spew?

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 10:02 PM
The Declaration of Independence, is just that, a declaration. They had no idea that they would actually succeed (and they had Thomas Paine) so as someone else said "They would say that, wouldn't they?". Not expecting their declaration to actually apply to themselves.

:)

lj would be proud of you...

Phillip Allen
01-21-2011, 10:04 PM
I'm going to bed before I cause my Austin friend to have a sh*! hemorrhage...

oznabrag
01-21-2011, 10:04 PM
spew?


Just frookin' breathe for a second, eh?

BarnacleGrim
01-21-2011, 10:05 PM
This is fun. I seem to always be sound asleep or doing something productive whenever a gun thread turns into a train wreck. :D

oznabrag
01-21-2011, 10:10 PM
This ain' no train wreck.

Not yet.

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 10:14 PM
But it is close.

Personally, I would consider the existence of an all-volunteer, professional, standing army to be a great threat to a Democratic Republic such as the U.S.A.

But that is just me....

oznabrag
01-21-2011, 10:22 PM
But it is close.

Personally, I would consider the existence of an all-volunteer, professional, standing army to be a great threat to a Democratic Republic such as the U.S.A.

But that is just me....

This assertion is but a step or two away from demonstration, if you ask me.

Our civil police already have been militarized and trained to treat ordinary citizens as 'civilians', or 'other'. Our Constitution prohibits any 'standing army', meaning an army constituted to maintain civil order and housed among the populace.

Welcome to the era of 'law enforcer' that has supplanted the notion of 'peace officer'.

Tom Montgomery
01-21-2011, 10:34 PM
Oh yes. I agree.

What was it Dubya said? "With 9/11 everything changed?"

Fear and paranoia prevails. Kiss our American principles goodbye.
.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-21-2011, 10:35 PM
This assertion is but a step or two away from demonstration, if you ask me.

Our civil police already have been militarized and trained to treat ordinary citizens as 'civilians', or 'other'. Our Constitution prohibits any 'standing army', meaning an army constituted to maintain civil order and housed among the populace.

Welcome to the era of 'law enforcer' that has supplanted the notion of 'peace officer'.

There was a link posted in #71 you might want to check out. Our military is preparing to ignore that constitutional prohibition.

skipper68
01-21-2011, 11:51 PM
I lived in AZ in the 70's. Everyone wore a side arm. No one ever was rude to anyone. When the playing field is equal,we all behave. The law says in NY,if you have a license,you shall wear your gun in sight.(the law is same with knives-in sight) No one needs the hidden gun license. When they see the gun all the decisions are made-fast. It is the equalizer. The scum that have illegal,hidden weapons in their baggy pants will think twice. P.S. I had a 357 Magnum,made just for my hand. I had a guy break into my home while I was asleep. I woke up to see him walking out of my room. I pulled my 357, realized I couldn't shoot.and he ran. I couldn't take half his body off. Then I went out and bought a 22. That would take out a knee cap,and he would be alive to explain why he was in my house. I believe us citizens should be armed to tell the scumbags,NOPE. If you take the protection away from the citizens,only the criminals will be armed with illegal guns. We now have a 9MM. I like it.

perldog007
01-21-2011, 11:56 PM
that's silly give up hand guns big woop that's your definition of liberty ? A handgun ?

Just curious Joe, any idea of what George Washington said about handguns?

Tom Montgomery
01-22-2011, 12:04 AM
I lived in AZ in the 70's. Everyone wore a side arm. No one ever was rude to anyone.

And if you had lived in Tombstone, Arizona during the 1880's you would have been required to surrender your sidearm upon entering town.

If you refused you would have been buffaloed by police officers much tougher than you and thrown into stir to nurse your headache.

Isn't that interesting?
.

perldog007
01-22-2011, 12:22 AM
And if you had lived in Tombstone, Arizona during the 1880's you would have been required to surrender your sidearm upon entering town.

If you refused you would have been buffaloed by police officers much tougher than you and thrown into stir to nurse your headache.

Isn't that interesting?
.

More or less, but perhaps not quite that cut and dry. Some historians ( quoting history channel from memory ) have forwarded the position that in most of the cow towns "no guns" meant concealed guns, and that locals were often winked at if they "fell in line". Certainly in the tombstone example most accounts agree that Doc Holliday wasn't a lawman, but was armed when he was "deputized" or otherwise pressed into service. Haven't researched that on line yet, just what I remember reading in high school....

Tom Montgomery
01-22-2011, 12:51 AM
More or less, but perhaps not quite that cut and dry. Some historians ( quoting history channel from memory ) have forwarded the position that in most of the cow towns "no guns" meant concealed guns, and that locals were often winked at if they "fell in line". Certainly in the tombstone example most accounts agree that Doc Holliday wasn't a lawman, but was armed when he was "deputized" or otherwise pressed into service. Haven't researched that on line yet, just what I remember reading in high school....

They pretty much insisted on firearms being surrendered. Did they give a "nod and wink" to friends and acquaintances? No doubt. As do, let's be honest, police officers today. But they insisted upon strict compliance by everyone else. And for good reason. Recall that Ed Masterson was murdered by a man who refused to surrender his gun. Recall that the Earps and Holliday entered that alley with the intention of disarming the Clantons and McLaureys.

The Earps, Mastersons, and Tighmans of the old west were not actually involved in very many firefights.

Tom Montgomery
01-22-2011, 12:54 AM
The law says,no military people shall ever be seen in ANY buisness,in uniform. That includes McDonald's,or your friendly DMV. IF you EVER see a military uniform in ANY public store or resterant..IT IS ILLEGAL. Look it up. Our for fathers guaranteed us of this. :d If,the only ones that own guns are unlicensed,BEND OVER>

OMG!

I see them in uniform in the local Starbucks, Speedways, and Thorntons ALL THE TIME! Often alongside uniformed policemen!

Oh dear! What to do? My paranoia runneth over!

Tom Montgomery
01-22-2011, 01:04 AM
I would have left, with my "toys" rather than be unarmed at that place and time.

That's right. Because if you stayed you either surrendered your weapons or else tangled with a rough group who beat you over the head, tossed you into a cell, and then fined you for violating the city ordinance.

The standard western story is a myth. You simply were not allowed to pack heat in town.

Hickock would shoot you. The others would kick your ass and throw your sorry butt in stir.

skipper68
01-22-2011, 01:05 AM
A legal gun is the only right we still have. The NYS Canal Corp. said it was illegal to have a fire arm. They also required us to have a 12 gage flare gun. Make up ur mind! We took the NYS Troopers to court over these laws,and a few more. The law said legally,1- 6 pack of beer per person. Well,we are gone for a month or more. We set a ?president,as it is our home,and our biggest beer was 10- 30 packs.;)

Tom Montgomery
01-22-2011, 01:16 AM
A legal gun is the only right we still have.

OH YEAH!

You should fall on your knees and thank your God every day that you are alive in the early 21st Century rather than the late 19th Century!

Tom Montgomery
01-22-2011, 01:27 AM
Men and women in military uniform are around here all the time. They own homes, condominiums, or rent apartments here in Louisville and are based at Fort Knox.

I find the idea that they may not appear in public places in uniform to be absurd. Crazy, in fact.

Glen Longino
01-22-2011, 01:43 AM
I went back and read... Hiscock would shoot you. Guess who my realitives were? Yup. Small world it is! IF you spelled it right

Hickock would shoot you, not His Cock would shoot you, you danged idgit!;)

skipper68
01-22-2011, 01:44 AM
Men and women in military uniform are around here all the time. They own homes, condominiums, or rent apartments here in Louisville and are based at Fort Knox.

I find the idea that they may not appear in public places in uniform to be absurd. Crazy, in fact.
It is for the country. If,we were shopping in the store and it was taken over with military there,it might cause panic. The US military is forbid by the Constitution,from taking control of USA. Only a Govoner can request the National Guard. It was misunderstood. They cant go into a business in their
military fatigues? UGHHH! Now,that this is an issue,I will take my dial up ,and get the law. I Will Be Back With This. ;)

Tom Montgomery
01-22-2011, 01:56 AM
I went back and read... Hiscock would shoot you. Guess who my realitives were? Yup. Small world it is! IF you spelled it right

Here you go: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Bill_Hickok?wasRedirected=true

James Butler Hickock was born and raised in Homer (now Troy Grove), Illinois.

Hickock was a killer. As was John Wesley Hardin (who "got out of Dodge" (actually Abilene) to avoid arrest by Hickock).

The Earps, Mastersons, Holliday, Tighman, etc, were guns for hire who generally worked on the side of the law (and the stage companies, and the casinos, and the bordellos, etc.).

Then you had the stone cold psychopaths like Tom Horn.

The most fascinating story of all may be that of Frank M. Canton.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-22-2011, 02:02 AM
The standard western story is a myth. You simply were not allowed to pack heat in town.


Well, the town part is true. That said, once you left city limits, help was a long horse ride away back then, kinda like modern-day Detroit.

Tom Montgomery
01-22-2011, 02:07 AM
Well, the town part is true. That said, once you left city limits, help was a long horse ride away back then.

Yep.

But the myth of the gun totin' cowboy shooting out the kerosene lamps and generally ripping up the town is bogus.

Hard men were hired to nip that sort of behavior in the bud.

Men like Seth Bullock. Bullock ran Wyatt Earp out of Deadwood. He was later a friend of Theodore Roosevelt.
.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-22-2011, 03:08 AM
Yep.

But the myth of the gun totin' cowboy shooting out the kerosene lamps and generally ripping up the town is bogus.

Hard men were hired to nip that sort of behavior in the bud.

.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, you know, where most folks lived at the time; every man was responsible for his own hide and that of his kinfolk. Kind of like modern day Detroit.

downthecreek
01-22-2011, 04:47 AM
The memory of the minutemen at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill is a powerful image. But the fact is that such militia efforts would have gone to waste had not the colonies formed a confederation to raise and support a real army.


Come, come, Tom. Never let reality get in the way of a good, self congratulatory myth. :d

The facts of 1812 don't seem to have penetrated very far, either. That, or some folks are easily suited when it comes to declaring "victory".

Gore Vidal was right. The United States of Amnesia. Or, worse, I fear - Impenetrable Delusion. Still, if it makes them happy..........;)

KM Bever
01-22-2011, 06:49 AM
And if you had lived in Tombstone, Arizona during the 1880's you would have been required to surrender your sidearm upon entering town.

If you refused you would have been buffaloed by police officers much tougher than you and thrown into stir to nurse your headache.

Isn't that interesting?
.

Just because in happen in history, it was still unconstitutional.

Phillip Allen
01-22-2011, 07:00 AM
can I come back now?

skuthorp
01-22-2011, 07:45 AM
Most interesting 'gun' thread we've ever had. Where do all the private "security" firms fit in to this. I don't mean bank guards, more like the Blackwater organisations that are mostly ex military? Quoting Tom Mongomery "Personally, I would consider the existence of an all-volunteer, professional, standing army to be a great threat to a Democratic Republic such as the U.S.A." and having read some posts re it's replacement by a volunteer force (as per the constitution?), do you think for one minute that the MIC would countenance this move? And I presume this would mean that overseas adventures by the US would cease.

oznabrag
01-22-2011, 09:29 AM
Most interesting 'gun' thread we've ever had. Where do all the private "security" firms fit in to this. I don't mean bank guards, more like the Blackwater organisations that are mostly ex military? Quoting Tom Mongomery "Personally, I would consider the existence of an all-volunteer, professional, standing army to be a great threat to a Democratic Republic such as the U.S.A." and having read some posts re it's replacement by a volunteer force (as per the constitution?), do you think for one minute that the MIC would countenance this move? And I presume this would mean that overseas adventures by the US would cease.

The MIC would poop its pants.


can I come back now?

If you'll let other people express themselves, and tone your rhetoric down about 7 notches so that this can continue to be the 'Most interesting 'gun' thread we've ever had', then I'm sure we'll be happy to have you.

Thank you, Phil.

perldog007
01-22-2011, 01:52 PM
I am leaning towards agreeing with Skulthorp that the founders ( said in reverent hushed tone for my good friend mmd....) would have little use for Blackwater, et. al... I see them as more of a threat to liberty than a protector of it. They certainly did not universally engender respect from the government troops I talked to re: Iraq...... Perhaps I just need more information, but I don't favor PMCs' in general.

paladin
01-22-2011, 03:55 PM
The problem with Blackwater was that they didn't play by the rules. They began to think they made the rules.

Phillip Allen
01-22-2011, 04:02 PM
The problem with Blackwater was that they didn't play by the rules. They began to think they made the rules.

It occurs to me (don't know how true it might be) that Blackwater is a peek into what the young and maybe all of us would descend into if we thought we wouldn't be held accountable

pefjr
01-22-2011, 04:34 PM
It occurs to me (don't know how true it might be) that Blackwater is a peek into what the young and maybe all of us would descend into if we thought we wouldn't be held accountableAccountability....hmmmm.....big word....cure all?? ..... hmmm.... I think so , yep might cure all the ills of society. Or at least close to most.

KM Bever
01-22-2011, 04:49 PM
Phillip, I agree with you.

"It occurs to me (don't know how true it might be) that Blackwater is a peek into what the young and maybe all of us would descend into if we thought we wouldn't be held accountable"


I think of Blackwater as an off shore expeditionary mercenary force, I don't think it's unconstitutional, but I don't like. Not paid to defend the Constitution, seem to owe allegiance to the $dead president$. Money!!!!!! I'm not for it at all.

Don't know what Blackwater does in the US of A.? Never thought about it, I may do some surf'n about it.

WX
01-22-2011, 04:59 PM
Remember the private security guys that got murdered and strung up from a bridge in Iraq? Ever wondered why that happened? The story I have heard is this. These private security people had/have a bad habit of shooting at pedestrians and cars that got too close when they were out riding shotgun for VIPs. Well in one area the locals saw a chance and decided to do something about it.
In my opinion the US doesn't need an armed population anymore. I think the amendment was included because back then the US did not have a large standing army and have the population armed was a good way of raising a defence force in times of need.

perldog007
01-22-2011, 05:05 PM
Remember the private security guys that got murdered and strung up from a bridge in Iraq? Ever wondered why that happened? The story I have heard is this. These private security people had/have a bad habit of shooting at pedestrians and cars that got too close when they were out riding shotgun for VIPs. Well in one area the locals saw a chance and decided to do something about it.
In my opinion the US doesn't need an armed population anymore. I think the amendment was included because back then the US did not have a large standing army and have the population armed was a good way of raising a defence force in times of need.

Actually, a large standing army is a reason that the second amendment was included, as a defense against same being used to encroach liberty... I know, hard to grasp but that's where they were going with it. Reading some of the Federalist papers gives good insight into the discussion, whether or not you agree with the outcome.

WX
01-22-2011, 05:11 PM
Actually, a large standing army is a reason that the second amendment was included, as a defense against same being used to encroach liberty... I know, hard to grasp but that's where they were going with it. Reading some of the Federalist papers gives good insight into the discussion, whether or not you agree with the outcome.

so that's where the recurring distrust of government theme comes from....interesting.

perldog007
01-22-2011, 05:24 PM
so that's where the recurring distrust of government theme comes from....interesting.

Actually, it comes from a fundamental understanding of human nature, and an acknowledgement that governments are composed of people. Whereas the notion that government is sacrosanct......

KM Bever
01-22-2011, 05:30 PM
Accountability....hmmmm.....big word....cure all?? ..... hmmm.... I think so , yep might cure all the ills of society. Or at least close to most.

Some say Jefferson said “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”, isn't that holding accountability to the max, both government and someone about to do you harm. We the people must hold ourselves and others accountable. John Adams said “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." I think you could insert "accountable" if you don't like "moral and religious".

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-22-2011, 05:34 PM
I think of Blackwater as an off shore expeditionary mercenary force, I don't think it's unconstitutional, but I don't like. Not paid to defend the Constitution, seem to owe allegiance to the $dead president$. Money!!!!!! I'm not for it at all.

Don't know what Blackwater does in the US of A.? Never thought about it, I may do some surf'n about it.

That's correct, Blackwater (now Xe services) has no loyalty to the constitution, or the American people. Eric Prince (founder), is now working out of the UAE, which incidentally doesn't extradite people to the USA. Prince's latest adventure is reported to be in Somalia. [LINK] (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/22/938070/-Blackwater-Invades-Somalia-)

As for involvement within the U.S., I remember hearing about Blackwater being in New Orleans right after Hurricane Katrina. A quick googling should bring up a few stories about it.

KM Bever
01-22-2011, 05:36 PM
so that's where the recurring distrust of government theme comes from....interesting.

and that's why the Bill of Rights is full of "shall not's". instead of Shall's

WX
01-22-2011, 05:40 PM
Actually, it comes from a fundamental understanding of human nature, and an acknowledgement that governments are composed of people. Whereas the notion that government is sacrosanct......

No government is sacrosanct, that's why we have limited the period in office any party may have between elections by the people. I don't particularly trust any political party but I don't feel the need to be armed just in case.
Out of curiosity what chance do you think a bunch of disorganized untrained individuals would have against the US armed forces?

WX
01-22-2011, 05:44 PM
The short answer to why we have the 2nd amendment was to ensure the United States of America didn't become like the UK or any other 1 "ruler" nation. Can't you guys understand this? Seriously...

Even if you don't appreciate the 2nd amendment at least understand why it was written. Liberals have a short view span... you've got to look at the large picture.

I am assuming you are referring to the British monarchy. They've moved on since then and developed the parliamentary system, of course you may not have noticed but it seems to work extremely well without an armed population

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-22-2011, 05:50 PM
Out of curiosity what chance do you think a bunch of disorganized untrained individuals would have against the US armed forces?

I think a more interesting question is what percentage of the US armed forces would put their weapons down if confronted with armed citizens? If the percentage is > 50 %, I'd think few if any shots would be fired in this hypothetical revolt.

KM Bever
01-22-2011, 06:07 PM
I think a more interesting question is what percentage of the US armed forces would put their weapons down if confronted with armed citizens? If the percentage is > 50 %, I'd think few if any shots would be fired in this hypothetical revolt.

In a hypothetical revolt, the US Armed Forces would defend the Constitution along side the citizens. That's what their sworn to do, defend the Constitution.

Bill Griffin
01-22-2011, 06:10 PM
Dr Troll what makes you think they'd put their weapons down instead of just switching sides? We did a lot of training on crowd dispersal waay back in the day, but it never centered on shootin' em. I always figured if it got that bad most of us would take out weapons with us and go over the hill.

Peerie Maa
01-22-2011, 06:11 PM
In a hypothetical revolt, the US Armed Forces would defend the Constitution along side the citizens. That's what their sworn to do, defend the Constitution.

Are they not sworn to obey the commander in chief?

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-22-2011, 06:15 PM
Dr Troll what makes you think they'd put their weapons down instead of just switching sides?

I suppose that is a better depiction of what the scenario would look like, if it ever happens.

KM Bever
01-22-2011, 06:33 PM
Are they not sworn to obey the commander in chief?

I found this,

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

They swear to defend the Constitution, and secondly follow orders (lawful orders). This would put them in a very tight spot.

Little Rock Crisis, we had the nine black students who were blocked by the Arkansas National Guard (ordered by then Governor Faubus). Some of the Arkansas citizens were also blocking the way. I'll bet nearly everyone was armed. Then trumped by President Eisenhower and 101st Airborne. I wonder what to soldiers were thinking?

Phillip Allen
01-22-2011, 07:24 PM
I found this,

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

They swear to defend the Constitution, and secondly follow orders (lawful orders). This would put them in a very tight spot.

Little Rock Crisis, we had the nine black students who were blocked by the Arkansas National Guard (ordered by then Governor Faubus). Some of the Arkansas citizens were also blocking the way. I'll bet nearly everyone was armed. Then trumped by President Eisenhower and 101st Airborne. I wonder what to soldiers were thinking?

I bet they were thinking "Please don't let it get any worse than it already is"
it may be the Ike was the only C&C who could have gotten by with it...think anyone would have believed Clinton o rCarter or anyone else since then?

WX
01-22-2011, 07:33 PM
It does?
Given that no system of government is perfect and that it is a work in progress, then I'd say yes.

KM Bever
01-22-2011, 07:53 PM
Reckon that could be said of our system, too. It's in its infancy, compared to the Brits...and deals with magnitudes more folks, from all over the world.

Worth defending.

WX
01-22-2011, 08:29 PM
Reckon that could be said of our system, too. It's in its infancy, compared to the Brits...and deals with magnitudes more folks, from all over the world.
True, but it doesn't mean you need a gun. Also most Western nations are multicultural now. We had a white Australia policy up until the 60's, Vietnamese boat people put paid to to that. One of the blowbacks of warring against others.

bobbys
01-22-2011, 08:36 PM
Remember the private security guys that got murdered and strung up from a bridge in Iraq? Ever wondered why that happened? The story I have heard is this. These private security people had/have a bad habit of shooting at pedestrians and cars that got too close when they were out riding shotgun for VIPs. Well in one area the locals saw a chance and decided to do something about it.
In my opinion the US doesn't need an armed population anymore. I think the amendment was included because back then the US did not have a large standing army and have the population armed was a good way of raising a defence force in times of need...

Did this come out in their trial?

WX
01-22-2011, 08:45 PM
..

Did this come out in their trial?
I doubt they got one. I would say it was more a case of angry crowd and any mercenary will do. There is footage of private security firing at cars and pedestrians.

paladin
01-22-2011, 10:56 PM
I think it depends on who you hire. Older, more experienced will do their job and not antagonize the populace. The young gung ho, fresh outta the military types seem to do pretty much whatever they think they can get away with. As it Vietnam, C.I.A. started getting more poly sci folks outta college and replacing the older experienced field personnel and really caused some problems. Smart A$$e$ thought they were God and ended up with a grenade in their bunks.