Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

Status
Not open for further replies.
timmy4 said:
Is this simply your interpretation, or are you convinced that any limitation on high capacity magazines WILL be overturned by the SC?
Click to expand...
Timmy4. Thank you for joining us with your level-headed and important questions. I wish all of my non-gun friends were as curious and openminded.

CmdrSlandr. Thank you! I wanted to say the same thing and read through 49 posts before I saw it.

Of course all rights have limits; and for the first time, Heller gave us reasonable guidance as to where to draw the line on the 2nd. "In common use at the time." Given that the AR-15 platform is the fastest growing segment, I don't see how supporters of the Feinstein bill can say that these aren't "in common use."

Heller doesn't address magazine capacity, but I think it's reasonable to extrapolate the spirit of the ruling to magazines, because they are an important determinant of the firearm's functionality. I frankly don't know where to draw the Constitutional line. But I would say at a minimum, it would have to allow magazines that ship from the factory with commonly used guns.

Since very few magazine fed firearms ship with less that 10, and most don't even have magazines readily available with lower capacity, I don't know how Cuomo can defend his 7 round limit. It essentially bans a huge swath of very popular guns until such time (if any) as a manufacturer chooses to introduce new products specifically to address his dictat.

I'm not aware of any gun that come standard with >30, so I think over 30 may withstand constitutional scrutiny.
 
Timmy.... You say you fear guns but you seem to have no fear of your govt. You say our responses sound "paranoid."

In my opinion, your fear is misplaced in that you have it backwards.
 
The reason is that the Second Amendment is important because it protects the rights outlined in the other amendments.

We're not loonies who cling to the Second Amendment dogmatically, we keep stressing it because it is important.

Many (Most? All?) of us keep guns to protect ourselves and our loved ones, because we are just as afraid of becoming a victim of crime as you are. We simply believe that the police cannot always be there fast enough.

Guns aren't just used by criminals, thousands of rapes, murders and robberies are prevented each year by responsible people with firearms.

It's unsavory to have to think about this stuff at all, and nobody could blame you for being repulsed by violence.
Sometimes however, violence is necessary to protect good people, that's why the police have guns.

I'm from Britain, and I can tell you from first hand experience that most of the information you have about guns is deliberately false and misleading.
Banning guns does not prevent bad people doing horrible things.
Most guns are illegal in Britain, or very difficult to legally own, but Britain has about four times as much violent crime as we do here in the States.

'Hot' burglaries, which are burglaries that take place when the homeowner is present, are 60% in Britain, but only 13% here, because criminals are aware that a lot of American homes have guns.
You already benefit from gun ownership, because these criminals don't know which homes have guns.

I'm sure that you will hear from people a lot more eloquent than me, but one thought I'd like you to take away from this is that you have only heard one side of the argument, because the mainstream media knows that an anti-gun stance sells.

You have taken the first step in hearing the other side of the argument by posting in this forum. Please continue to do your research, and if at the end of it you are still against guns, then at least you can have the satisfaction of knowing that you made an informed decision.

Incidentally, Penn & Teller did a series called 'Bull****!' and one of the episodes was about gun control. I strongly recommend that you include that episode in your research.
 
dmckean44 said:
So you come here saying you own zero guns and know little about them. How would you know if 10 or 30 or 1000 is too much or not??

Most of us shoot several hundred rounds every time we take a trip to the range.
Click to expand...
Additionally, you have to realize that ten rounds of 5.56 (the AR15's cartridge) is very different from 10 rounds of 12 Gauge buckshot or ten rounds of .308 Winchester. The 5.56 is not a reliable one shot stopper/killer. It takes about 2 to 3 shots to effectively bring someone down with a 5.56 so in the AR15 a 30 round magazine really only permits the killing of 10 people assuming every shot hits. With a pump shotgun that holds five shells (something you would never try to ban) you could kill a room full of people without reloading because every shell holds around 15 pellets the size of common pistol bullets. Really, a fully loaded Glock has as much firepower as a single 12 gauge shell. This is why capacity limits are arbitrary and annoy us so much.
 
I took these from a website and clicked off the tab too soon so I can't give the site proper credit.


Check out these quotes. These guys had such courage. I think they would be sickened and very disappointed with how we have let things go in our country. The mid-term elections can't get here soon enough. We've got work to do ladies and gentlemen. Just like every deer hunter should hunt coyotes, every gun owner should be an activist. The path some want to go down is a very slippery slope and the only way to beat it is on election day.





"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"-- Thomas Jefferson


"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"-- George Washington


"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."-- Alexander Hamilton


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-- Benjamin Franklin


"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."-- Thomas Jefferson


"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."-- Abraham Lincoln


"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."-- George Washington


"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms." -- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788


"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere." -- Thomas Jefferson


"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."-- Thomas Jefferson
 
timmy4 said:
I have to say that, while I respect most of the arguments that have been made here (whether I agree with them or not) this one I find to be somewhat offensive.

I am Jewish; my grandparents and great-grandparents were victims of the Holocaust. I don't appreciate the comparison of what is currently being proposed to what they had to suffer through (or for that matter, what Blacks had to suffer through in the 19th century.) I think that your point can be made without such an onerous analogy.
Click to expand...

what does halacha say about gun control ?
Halacha has a very clear message…. Basically, your life is a gift from God and if someone tries to take it away from you, you have an obligation to try to prevent that

how on earth can you be in favor of gun control ?
 
radiotom said:
I for one think the 2nd Amendment allows for nuclear arms, and felons, crazy people etc to possess them. If you don't like it, you don't get a judge to make it so, you make another Amendment...there's already a process for that....I'm pretty sure you could get it to pass.
Click to expand...
Arms =/= Ordnance.

If you think felons and the mentally ill should possess arms, you then are in disagreement with the Founders and Framers, who, in the federalist papers, commented about restricting arms for those not of sound mind and of poor moral character.



Timmy, one of the reasons gun-owners and supporters of the second amendment resist any for of gun control is the fact that over and over, they have been proven to be ineffective.
Case in point: Last summer, there was a high media profile shooting outside the Empire State Building in New York City. The weapon used was a .45 semi automatic clone of the popular 1911. It was possessed illegally by the shooter. Much more recently, New York passed a gun control law that would limit magazine capacity to 7 rounds. Would this law have prevented this murder had it been passed a year ago, months prior to this high profile murder?

The anti-gun politicians want a gun ban to keep guns out of schools, to protect our children. In 1999, in the middle of the first Assault Weapons Ban, the town of Littleton, Colorado was shocked when two students went on a rampage in Columbine High School. Aside from the modifications to the double barrel shotgun, the guns used were perfectly legal to own. The AWB did nothing to prevent two mentally ill students from murdering several of their classmates.

Gun Free Zones have proved to be target areas for mass shootings.

I point this out because if the Right of the People to keep and bear arms had NOT been infringed, it's possible that these atrocities would never have happened. We don't know what would have happened if these were not gun free zones, but we know what happened because they were.

We have the right to keep and bear arms. We have the right to free speech, we have the right to practice the religion of our choice. We have the right to be protected from illegal search and seizure and the right to due process of law. The government cannot force you to house and quarter soldiers in the military. There are many more rights protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These are the rights of the people. All people, people like you and me. The Second Amendment is what gives the people the ability to preserve those rights, as a last recourse. It is the teeth that back us up when the bark fails. Without teeth, a dog is pretty useless and easily bypassed. The same thing goes with our rights. Without the ability to protect our rights, all the yelling and shouting in the world is fruitless if it can be easily ignored, just like the toothless yapping dog. The Second Amendment protects the rest of our rights. That is why it's important.
 
But there are plenty of examples of people getting murdered by their own governments. More than died in all major wars since 1900. Not ancient history either. Kosovo, Rwanda, all over Africa.

"1935 will go down in History! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead to the future!" -Adolph Hitler

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty."

-Adolf Hitler
Edict of March 18, 1938, H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table Talks 1941-1944 (London: Widenfeld and Nicolson, 1953, p. 425-426) 1938(9?)-03-18

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."

-Heinrich Himmler
 
ljnowell said:
timmy4,

Quick question. You admit you are afraid of guns. You have nothing to do with them. What makes you feel you are qualified to decide how many rounds people need in thier magazine?

It seems this is the main problem we have with anti-gun people. They are hell bent on legislating away my rights by banning things they dont even understand. Its fine with you because you dont like them. What about when they come for the 1st amendment? Are you going to be as OK with that?
Click to expand...
Just have time to answer this one question. My answer is I am not qualified. My views on high capacity magazines were formed by reading some law enforcement opinions on this, starting with the police chief of Baltimore. He made what I believe to be convincing arguments.

I don't want to remove any of your rights or privileges unless I am pretty sure they are harmful to society. Currently I am against banning any "assault rifles" for a very simple reason: I can't see any difference between them and other semi-automatic guns, other than how they look. How something looks is not a good enough reason to ban anything, IMO. So I fall on "your side" when it comes to that question. But I do think that limiting high capacity magazines and removing the private sales loophole makes sense.
 
timmy4 said:
Hello, I am new to this forum. I probably disagree with most of you here on several issues. I own no guns, and frankly they scare me. I believe in gun control. I believe in what President Obama is trying to do on this issue. I joined this forum hoping for some respectful debate and to learn the thoughts of those who don't agree with me on these subjects.

Let me start with a basic question: why do you guys keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment? I have studied most of the major gun proposals: the three being most talked about are a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, a limitation on high capacity gun magazines, and a closure of the loophole for private sales (in which background checks are currently not necessary.) It seems to me that none of these ideas would violate the 2nd Amendment. So why keep bringing it up?
Click to expand...
Why?

”Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.”
~Benjamin Franklin

”This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.”
~Abraham Lincoln


”That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State…”
~George Mason

”Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.”
~John Adams

”The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
~Thomas Jefferson

”The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…”
~James Madison

”The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
~Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764)

"In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right was protected by the 2nd Amendment. --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

And keep in mind what the OTHER countries said about arms. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Ida Amin, Mugbee, etc... and as a infamous one of their number said...

”Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”
~Heinrich Himmler

And we know how THAT turned out. As did the USSR, CHINA, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Cuba, etc...

The 2nd Amendment is NOT about duck hunting.

The 2nd Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It says the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms, not the Militia's, not the STATE'S, not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S, but the PEOPLE's right as in WE THE PEOPLE.

The first part of the Amendment was to give a REASON for the second part. That is why the PEOPLE should have ARMS. The same arms the militias have (and thus the standing army of today.)

And that is why we bring up the 2nd Amendment so much. It is that important.
 
"I don't want to remove any of your rights or privileges unless I am pretty sure they are harmful to society."

You can't "remove" our rights (no man can) because they are God Given. You can only Infringe upon them.
 
CmdrSlander said:
Additionally, you have to realize that ten rounds of 5.56 (the AR15's cartridge) is very different from 10 rounds of 12 Gauge buckshot or ten rounds of .308 Winchester. The 5.56 is not a reliable one shot stopper/killer. It takes about 2 to 3 shots to effectively bring someone down with a 5.56 so in the AR15 a 30 round magazine really only permits the killing of 10 people assuming every shot hits. With a pump shotgun that holds five shells (something you would never try to ban) you could kill a room full of people without reloading because every shell holds around 15 pellets the size of common pistol bullets. Really, a fully loaded Glock has as much firepower as a single 12 gauge shell. This is why capacity limits are arbitrary and annoy us so much.
Click to expand...
Here is a more mathematically persuasive comparison:

AR15 with a 30 round magazine, fully loaded with common 55 Grain bullets:


AR15_A3_Tactical_Carbine_pic1.jpg

Total bullet weight in the magazine (the amount lethal lead that can be dispatched without reloading): 1650 grains

Remington 870 Express, a hunting shotgun that would be exempt from all capacity bans due to its five round tube.

80015d1358356686-new-remington-870-express-image-2255120743.jpg
Total bullet weight in the magazine (the amount lethal lead that can be dispatched without reloading):
3500 grains!

That's right! Grain for Grain, a turkey gun with a five round magazine tube that is legal everywhere has more killing power than the dreaded AR15!
 
timmy4 said:
Just a note on Germany: the Nazis did not disarm it citizens. Yes, there were laws disarming the Jews, but very few of them had arms anyhow. The bulk of German population actually increased private gun ownership- it was encouraged all throughout the Nazi regime. Germany wasn't disarmed until we did it in 1945.

As far as Vietnam goes, we didn't face privately armed civilians there, we faced guerillas being armed by other countries. To the best of my knowledge, there is no example in modern history where privately armed citizens ever held their own against a military force.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, you are dodging the question. What did those citizens do with those weapons in Vietnam? How did they fare against a much more powerful occupying force? The media here had a cow when our soldiers were engaging in urban warfare in Iraq. How do you think that would go over if it was happening here, against our own citizens?
 
Timmy, if you are local to me, I invite you to come shooting with me. I'll teach you safety, show you how the guns work, and not force you to do anything you don't want to do. I belong to a private club where we can have some privacy, though we can also go on days where it's more crowded if you'd prefer.

I call myself LevelHead for a reason. If you'd like to learn more about guns from someone who knows a lot, and will treat you with respect, send me a PM and we'll set it up. I'd be willing to bet that if you're not close to me, then there would be someone else who would similarly offer their time.

In my experience, debating from a standpoint of fear causes false assumptions to take hold as fact. I respect your willingness to have an open debate, but I think that if you found the right person to spend an afternoon shooting with, you might discover that you would have some fun and learn something while you're at it. Let me know.
 
timmy4 said:
I don't want to remove any of your rights or privileges unless I am pretty sure they are harmful to society
Click to expand...

Alcohol is harmful to society. The abuses of alcohol kill far more people than guns do.

Why don't we ban alcohol?

Or if not, register those who want to buy it and conduct background checks on them to see if they have a history of alcohol-related problems?

Or limit the number of bottles of alcohol you can buy. I've seen people go into a liquor store and buy a shopping cart full of booze. No one can drink a couple dozen bottles of booze! You just don't need that much. We should advocate for a system that limits the amount of booze someone can buy at one time.


See where that argument goes?
 
I'd also like to point out an error in all of these magazine capacity arguments.

The entire thing is invalid.
If you believe that lower magazine capacities will stop children being killed, then of course you would want lower capacities mandated in law.

The problem is that it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to a mass murderer, despite what the politicians are telling you.

If I thought that a 10 or even 7 round limit would save the lives of children, then I'd be all for it, but I don't let misinformed politicians do my thinking for me, ao I am fully aware that the whole argument is based on a false premise.
 
To address the issue that in 2013, even a very well-armed citizenry can't beat the US military....

I don't know that it's necessary to "beat" them. I think an armed citizenry is the difference between people being "disappeared" in the night and a noisy, public conflict. I have enough faith in our military that there would be significant resistance to shooting on their own people, and that reluctance would probably be magnified by the good chance that following illegal orders will result in a lead storm from surrounding rooftops. And with a 40% gun ownership rate, seeing an actual gunfight outside is going to embolden a gun owner to join in and take action, rather than wonder what his neighbors are up to and hope that the next disappearance isn't his.

Regardless of whether guerilla resistance has been abetted by foreign aid or whether they "won," it cannot be denied that guerillas, with weapons similar to our (OK, we don't have RPGs) have forced major military powers (US, USSR) to seriously rethink their political and territorial ambitions.
 
My favorite example of resistance comes from Denmark in WWII. When the Germans ordered the Jews to wear arm bands, the king put one on. So did most of the rest of the population. They would walk down the street with holes in their pockets and drop bent nails. They would put IEDs on the hulls of anchored ships. They waited for the Germans to go into their air raid shelters, and then dumped gasoline in the air vents and torched them. When they started placing guards to prevent this, they started sniping the guards and THEN torching them. The command had to call back to Berlin and tell them that they needed more tires, men, and equipment. Berlin started to question whether or not Denmark was worth the trouble, since they really just wanted Norway anyway. Had the war not ended, they likely would have abandoned Denmark.

It's not always about winning. Al-queda isn't winning. The Viet Cong weren't winning. But it is about making victory too expensive. The idea of an armed population doesn't have to be for an organized revolution. It's strongest benefit is in forcing the powers that be to remember that whatever it is they want to try, it just isn't worth it to try in the first place. THAT is why the possibility of armed revolution seems so remote.
 
Deaf Smith said:
Why?

”Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.”
~Benjamin Franklin

”This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.”
~Abraham Lincoln


”That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State…”
~George Mason

”Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.”
~John Adams

”The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
~Thomas Jefferson

”The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…”
~James Madison

”The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
~Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764)

"In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right was protected by the 2nd Amendment. --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

And keep in mind what the OTHER countries said about arms. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Ida Amin, Mugbee, etc... and as a infamous one of their number said...

”Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the State.”
~Heinrich Himmler

And we know how THAT turned out. As did the USSR, CHINA, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Cuba, etc...

The 2nd Amendment is NOT about duck hunting.

The 2nd Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It says the PEOPLE's right to keep and bear arms, not the Militia's, not the STATE'S, not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S, but the PEOPLE's right as in WE THE PEOPLE.

The first part of the Amendment was to give a REASON for the second part. That is why the PEOPLE should have ARMS. The same arms the militias have (and thus the standing army of today.)

And that is why we bring up the 2nd Amendment so much. It is that important.
Click to expand...
DeafSmith,
Please be sure to authenticate quotes before posting them. There are a lot of invented ones circulating, and repeating them only discredits us.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html
 
timmy4 said:
...It seems to me that none of these ideas would violate the 2nd Amendment...
Click to expand...
How do you know? That's really a question for the courts and one that will need to be worked out over time.

In the course of deciding Heller (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (United States Supreme Court, 2008)) and McDonald (McDonald v. City of Chicago (Supreme Court, 2010, No. 08-1521)), the rulings made by the United States Supreme Court on matters of Constitutional Law, as necessary in making its decisions in those cases, are now binding precedent on all other courts. Now the Supreme Court has finally confirmed that (1) the Second Amendment describes an individual, and not a collective, right; and (2) that right is fundamental and applies against the States. This now lays the foundation for litigation to challenge other restrictions on the RKBA, and the rulings on matters of law necessarily made by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald will need to be followed by other courts in those cases.

There is judicial authority for the proposition that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited regulation by government. Any such regulation must pass some level of scrutiny. The lowest level of scrutiny sometimes applied to such regulation, "rational basis", appears to now have been taken off the table, based on some language in McDonald. And since the Court in McDonald has explicitly characterized the right described by the Second Amendment as fundamental, we have some reason to hope that the highest level of scrutiny, "strict scrutiny" will apply. Strict scrutiny has thus far been the standard generally applied to regulation of a fundamental right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

There are three prongs to the strict scrutiny test, as follows:

[1] The regulation must be justified by a compelling governmental interest; and

[2] The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest; and

[3] The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest (i. e., there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive).

The level of scrutiny between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny" is "intermediate scrutiny." To satisfy the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way substantially related to that interest.

Whichever level of scrutiny may apply, the government, state or federal, seeking to have the regulation sustained will have the burden of convincing a court (and in some cases, ultimately the Supreme Court) that the regulation is acceptable under the applicable level of scrutiny. And since it is the burden of he who wants to regulation to establish that the regulation is acceptable under the Second Amendment, there is no reason for us
timmy4 said:
...to agree that there are SOME limitations,...
Click to expand...
Government will need to make its case in court, over our opposition in court.
 
The milita act of 1903 spells it out very clearly:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the militia shall consist of every able‐bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District
of Columbia, and every able‐bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who
is more than eighteen and less than forty‐five years of age, and into two classes‐the organized militia, to be known
as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given
them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia."

In short WE THE PEOPLE are the reserve militia and thus are REQUIRED to have Military serviceable firearms in case we are called on to defend our country from enimies foregin and domestic.

No to mention the BOR did not give us the right to defend ourselves being born did. The 2nd Amendment was put there to remind the government how this nation was born and why it will always remain *free



*VOID where prohibited (NY/CA) some restricion will apply.
 
Last edited:
I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine on the second amendment and it's importance. He stated some of the same arguments as you: particularly concerning the "there is no oppressive government." While I agree, to a certain extent, with that statement, what can guarantee me that there will not be one in 4 years? How about 10 years? 20 years?

I am sure that a German who was born in 1900 would have thought the same thing. Within 20 years, his government dissolved from a parliamentary monarchy to a democracy, and then thirteen years later and a lot of rioting and street fighting to a dictatorship. All of this happened in one lifetime. As a scholar of history, we would do well not to let down our guard against tyranny, as sometimes, but not always, it happens over a long period of time. Sometimes, it happens within a few months.

Already we are seeing politicians break their pledge (no new taxes, better healthcare, etc). The only things preventing tyranny from truly happening is moral checks and a fear of the vote. We are fortunate not to have to use arms to keep our government straight, but it has happened before, even within the last 2 generations. (http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm)
 
Timmy4 said:
Israel is a well-armed society- BUT- all firearms are registered. Convicted felons are not allowed to own guns, and there are no private sales without background checks. I also believe that certain types of rifles and high capacity gun magazines are also restricted (not sure about this last). None of this has prevented a high level of private gun ownership. I think Israel contradicts some of your "slippery slope" fears.
Click to expand...


Israel is a fairly new country.
The United States has seen
1.) The National Firearams Act of 1933 (controled machineguns & other devices).
2.) The Gun Control Act of 1938
3.) The Gun Control Act of 1968 (This was arguably patterned after a 1938 Nazi gun law applying a "sporting purpose" to guns).
4.) The Brady Act. This inmvolved first a waiting period which evolved into the NICS (National Instant Check System) so when one buys a gun from a FFL the owner gets cleared.
5.) The 1994-2004 Assault weapon ban, which banned a gun that possessed 2 or more of certain cosmetic features and imposed a 10 round limit on newly manufactured magazines.
In addition there are said to be around 20,000 gun control laws on a local, state and federal level.
Politicians have gone after "saturday night specials" before. These are inexpensive weapons popularly thought to be very useful by criminals -- but also useful for people who can't afford more expensive guns.
In New York City politicians made an effort to register certain semiauto long guns. A typical "pro vs. anti" argument broke out; the antis claiming that registration only leads to confiscation, while the government promised there would be no confiscation. The law passed. Flash forward three decades to Mayor Dinkins' administration. Some of those guns were banned and the registration list was in fact used to assure compliance.
A very similar mattern happened in California regarding the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon law.
So unfortunatly the "slippery slope" argument is very valid.
 
My views on high capacity magazines were formed by reading some law enforcement opinions on this, starting with the police chief of Baltimore.
Click to expand...
Police chiefs do not go out on the street and risk their lives. They are more concerned with their careers. They are out of touch.

Police chiefs are generally appointed...by politicians.
Rank and file officers, in general, have quite a different view than do political appointees.

I am sure you are familiar with Mayor Bloomberg and his happy band of mayors...
 
wooly bugger said:
To address the issue that in 2013, even a very well-armed citizenry can't beat the US military....
Click to expand...

I'll jump in here...

I have the greatest respect for our armed forces. These men and women represent the very best of us. Plenty of vets in my family, including almost 30 years of service from my own dad. But with all due respect, the greatest military power on the planet hasn't been able to "control" two countries in southwest Asia where most of the folks fighting us have nothing more than semi-automatic rifles and crude homemade bombs.

You think a conventional army would have better odds in this country? There are easily ten times the number of privately owned firearms in the US than there are human beings in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Having read the newspaper a few times in the last ten years, I'd say a motivated population with small arms stands a pretty good chance against a conventional army, depending on what the goal of that army is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
A Breakdown of the 2nd Amendment
Replies
16
Views
1K
9teenEleven
9
B
  • Locked
Great 2nd Amendment Event...
Replies
5
Views
576
BowStreetRunner
B
S
  • Locked
This might be the last decade for the 2nd Amendment
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
6K
David White
D
K
  • Locked
2nd Amendment vs 1st Amendment Strength, discuss...
Replies
10
Views
628
Graystar
G
E
  • Locked
Who Really Supports the 2nd Amendment
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
wuluf
W
Back
Top