Right to Keep & Bear Arms

Our military is a little better equipped than Assads.

Get your head out of the clouds. Citizens don't stand a chance against drones and surface to surface missiles.

LIKE I SAID, in the event of revolution from tyrannical government, an army of handguns provides little resistance. It won't happen for other reasons, not because John owns three fire arms.

- - - Updated - - -

Where does it say this part?'

Again, the 2nd Amendment does not say "every man has the right to own a gun." You still have no explanation for "Well Regulated Militia" and "of the people."

 

This is exactly what conservatives can't comprehend. Jimmy and a shotgun won't stand a chance against drones and missiles.

 

Erik, are you saying that our military will fire upon its own citizens? Mothers, brothers, fathers and sisters?

 

It's called a civil war for a reason.

The only people calling for a civil war seem to be gun nuts. All the more reason to disarm them.

 

Nope. I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying using "revolution against a Tyrannical government" as a blanket justification for 2A is obsolete. If the citizens wage war on the state, the revolution outcome won't be decided based on how many of them have shotguns. We have other powers to prevent that thing from happening. Namely, I don't know any General who would be willing to inflict the full carnage on our population that the Military is actually capable of.

Therefore, the 2A is for self-defense, hunting, and civilian pressure. It is better for our citizens to be armed than unarmed, but there is no seemingly unalienable right for every American citizen to own a gun. States authorize the right to carry based on background and other metrics, and that is how it should be.

 

Since you want to get involved, please answer the question. Will military fire upon its own citizens in a full scale revolution? Will factions of the military turn against government? My answer is yes in both cases. Wonder how individual States will play out in this scenario.

Oh, I hang around a lot of gun enthusiast, served in the Army for over 23 years and have yet to talk to someone calling for a revolution so your general assessment is bull (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

I think you ignore the concept of stare decisis in your suggestion that the 2008 Heller decision be overturned (or is it a prediction? I can't tell). I'm aware of no circumstances that would lead to the overturning of Heller in regard to whether the 2nd A gives a right to the people or state govts (whether it is an individual right or the right to be in a militia). The Court interprets the law of the land, and it has to be careful not to diminish the respect for that law by repeatedly overturning prior decisions. But Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter say it better in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey (1992) (and in dozens of other SCOTUS cases):

"When this Court reexamines a prior holding, its judgment is customarily informed by a series of prudential and pragmatic considerations designed to test the consistency of overruling a prior decision with the ideal of the rule of law, and to gauge the respective costs of reaffirming and overruling a prior case..."
"In constitutional adjudication as elsewhere in life, changed circumstances may impose new obligations, and the thoughtful part of the Nation could accept each decision to overrule a prior case as a response to the Court's constitutional duty. Because the case before us presents no such occasion it could be seen as no such response. Because neither the factual underpinnings of Roe's central holding nor our understanding of it has changed (and because no other indication of weakened precedent has been shown) the Court could not pretend to be reexamining the prior law with any justification beyond a present doctrinal disposition to come out differently from the Court of 1973..."
"The Court must take care to speak and act in ways that allow people to accept its decisions on the terms the Court claims for them, as grounded truly in principle, not as compromises with social and political pressures having, as such, no bearing on the principled choices that the Court is obliged to make."

You have failed to convince me that the factual underpinnings, or the Court's understanding of DC v Heller has changed. You only seem to propose an overturning of Heller based on a different doctrinal disposition, which is exactly what the Court warns of here, and in many other cases...

 

No sir, you can go about your wisdom and I will do the same. I give credence that a well trained citizen with a gun in his house plays a major role within a budding tyrannical government. 2A will never be obsolete in this context. And you are correct, Individual States are planting the tyrannical seed by restricting 2A so only elite have access.

Just prepare for the worse, I know I do.

 

You endorse the worst. You want it to happen. Why do you hate this country?

Continue to live in fantasy land. If you think your weapon will protect you against an army of drones or surface to surface missiles so be it. I hope you can sleep at night.

Look at what your gun for what it is; a hobby, a tool, and a means of protection for you and your family. It is not an instrument to overthrow our government. An armed revolution against modern technology would be a quick, bloody endeavor.

 

Although I can't take the position that the US govt is a "budding, tyrannical govt" (there are actual tyrannical govts out there, and I've seen their effects on their citizens), I also can't take the position that modern tech has made the right to bear arms obsolete. The US military is powerful, but it is still composed of many with families, no matter the level of tech...And I do believe that there is a subtle difference in the way a govt rules over an armed citizenry as opposed to an unarmed one.

 

I want what to happen? Stop projecting Erik. Is this your debate style? Putting words in others mouths? I have no fantasy....more projection on your part.

Can we stay with facts within this debate?

 

Your words, not mine.

 

I see winner written all over you, look forward to you sharing your wisdom and debate (deflection) style with this forum and members.....When I prepare for the worse it mainly has to do with man made and natural disasters. You can find it here in the sub forum:

http://www.politicalforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=100

You being a member here is special indeed......to me.

 

Now this is a good point. It's not necessarily tyranny (although that could be a use for firearms if the US govt became tyrannical in the future) that compels me to recognize the importance of the 2nd A at this time. It appears that during the aftermath of natural disasters, the US govt occasionally and temporarily fails to secure the safety of its citizens (from thugs/criminals). It is during these situations that Americans have a right to bear arms, and a right to self-defense.

 

It comes down to being prepared the best you can prior to any event. No society can guarantee safety, food or shelter. For our family and friends it is common goal, preparation for yourself and loved ones.

 

Again, this conflicts with everything I've read about the debate to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. The argument was about restricting the power of the federal govt (and later another argument was about restricting the power of the state govts, which led to the 14th applying the BoR to the states). Ratifiers wouldn't sign on to the Constitution until a BoR protecting the liberties of individuals were put in there. Some argued that the BoR was unnecessary, because the Constitution already enumerated the fed govt powers, and if one enumerated rights the feds couldn't trample, later down the road it might lead to the impression that the feds could trample rights NOT mentioned. This argument says that one could never word the BoR to encompass all areas in which govt has no right to interfere. But these are the debates I am aware of. The BoR wasn't about giving state govt's powers, like organizing and controlling the admission into militias. Your interpretation just doesn't match the rest of the BoR.

 

Then what did they mean by the "privileges and immunities" of citizens of the US? Which of these privileges and immunities was the 14th passed to protect? The Court has decided that most of the BoR are these privileges and immunities to be protected from state encroachment.

 

If it's murder it doesn't matter if he used a firearm, you're using a strawman.

So basically because you don't think I need a gun you're going to do what you think is best and take the guns away? What patronizing. Stop treating people like children.

That incident a while back in Britain, where two Jihadists chopped some soldier up in the street while everyoen jsut stood and watched - that's what happens when you've disarmed a population for so long. They don't want to do anything when they see a crime taking place, they just stand there and wait for the only people allowed to have guns to show up. In the US those two murderers would likely have been shot right there in the street.

 

So...that's it? If the US Government looks to become tyrannical....just deal with it? Allow no ability to rectify the situation, since you assumed from the outset they can't win anyway?

You know that sounds like a perfect excuse for a would-be dictator to take away the people's ability to resist him....

 

No. My point is that if he had used a knife he would have been charged. He used a gun, and there is a believe that guns are made for self-defense... especially for white people.

People who bring guns into groups of unwitting citizens are elevating the risk of them being shot. This whole notion that more guns equals less victimization is absurd. Nobody can get shot if there are no guns around. It's a public safety issue.

That's a great example: the chances of anyone being chopped up by a soldier are almost nil... far lower than being shot by somebody who you know. Guns are more often used to threaten and intimidate then to defend... at least in the hands of citizens.

 

Because it's a discussion board and it's a topic under discussion. There's another board called US Politics Online, that might be more to your liking but they also freely permit foreigners a say. Why don't you try StormFront?

 

The will of a few isn't the will of the people.

Nothing in the First Amendment confuses me. It says just what it means and it doesn't mean separation of church and state and if you can find one word in there that even mentions separation, be sure to point it out. As a matter of fact if you can find anywhere we ever even practiced it before the 5-4 USSC ruling in 1947, please show that also.

I don't think it needs to be rewritten, it only makes sense what it said. Outside of the Continental army, it was the people who help defend this country. They came together and formed their own militia. How was one to protect themselves back then. There was no law outside of the cities and towns. There were no stores to buy your meat. Do you actually think the only people who were allowed to have guns were a state militia? You don't know much about history if you do. Much like you can't find any place in our history where we ever had separation of church and state, you will not find any time in our history that the citizens were ever bared from having guns. Also keep in mind when you read the Bill of Rights, they aren't government or state rights, they are the rights of the citizens.

Of course we aren't equipt to take on the government today as they would have been back then. That doesn't take away the fact that people don't use their guns to hunt and protect their family.

 

Bowe_bird, your goofiness is just all the way off of the scale. Guns are legal here!!!! No amount of your hysterics can possibly change that!!!!
The very first time I carried a semi-automatic rifle in a populated area, I was with with 4 other SIX YEAR OLD children. We were accompanied by an Eagle Scout, who had his gun safety merit badge. It was about 2 blocks to the cow pasture where we would go to terrorize whatever critters we could scare up.
We passed by several houses where there were people on their front porch, or in the front yard. Several commented as we passed:
"Goin' out fer' dinner, eh?"
Or they'd ask if we wanted a drink of water, or a sandwich. They noted the time of day, and which way we were going, in case anything happened. It used to be that way in America. It still is, in some small towns that have not been effected by hysterical sheeple like you.
What are you talking about with "secured, or unsecured"? What in Gods' name is THAT???? It's actually illegal to carry a rifle or pistol in a case, by the letter of the law, because that constitutes concealment. A year or two ago, I was carrying some guns from my car to my apartment, in cases, and there was a cop here on a domestic call. He saw me walking toward him, and asked (friendly enough) "how are ya'?" I just said "tired", and kept on walking. He repeated "tired", behind me, and chuckled.
Of course, he knows that it's illegal to carry firearms cased here, but he also knows that we do it that way to keep from getting the sheeple excited.
Nonetheless, it is perfectly legal for me to carry my fully loaded Glock pistols in a holster, in full view in Nevada, and in many of the remaining American States that still recognize the Constitution.
For your own comprehension of life in the world, I wish you had been exposed to freedom in your earlier years.

 

Oh no, not the race card, since I find foreigners dictating to us how are laws should be.

Did you think that gem up all by yourself, or did you need help with that one?

 

When Liberals don't like something they want to change the meaning. An idiot has to know that for well over a 100 years after the Constitution was signed, the only law and order through most of the Western states and the farms all through the country was a man's gun. If your living out 10-20 or 30 miles from a city and someone comes attacking your home, who the hell are you going to call? Send up smoke signals to the state militia? How are you going to feed meat to your family? Common sense, why is it so rare in Liberals?