Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by timmy4, Jan 25, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Steel Horse Rider

    Steel Horse Rider Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    2,130
    Location:
    Loveland, Colorado
    If it walks like a troll, quacks like a troll, and dodges like a troll it is probably a troll, but I will take a shot in acting like it isn't a troll.

    How do you feel about "regulating" the other rights named in the Bill of Rights? Should you be licensed before you can speak of religion or against the government? Should your 4th Amendment rights against search and seizure be limited to just your person? Should you be compelled to testify against yourself if it is for "the greater good"? I could go on and on but I can't type that quickly. I believe that if you are truly seeking an honest answer that you spend some time in study of the Federalist Papers which were written as a series of newspaper editorials explaining and supporting what was written into the Constitution and why each item is critical to the security of the citizens of the country. The Constitution was written as a limit to the power of government, not as a definition of the rights of the citizens. You may not believe the government is at the edge of tyranny but I think your scope of comparison is too limited at this time to understand what you are using as a standard. Tyranny has become accepted as a government policy in probably 80% of the world so you need to look back historically to a time when men were actually free to be responsible for themselves.
     
  2. CmdrSlander

    CmdrSlander Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,203
    Location:
    Disputed Western Missouri
    Granted, being disarmed is not as bad as being a victim of genocide but for many people gun ownership is a huge part of their life, their identity, their employment, and their recreation. Anti-gunners rarely make a career out of being anti gun but many gun owners make a career out of advocating for, manufacturing, and studying firearms. If we demolished all gun laws, you would move on with your life pretty quickly, you might grumble, but your antigun view is only a small facet of your identity. If our gun rights were severely restricted, however, it would end many of our lifestyles and careers. This is why we fight.
     
  3. timmy4

    timmy4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    165
    This is a great post. I will read Larry's post, but in the meantime, let me respond to yours point by point:

    1. As I wrote earlier, I don't think it's possible to resist a modern tyrannical government with private weapons, should such a tragedy occur. (I don't believe it ever WILL occur.) Therefore, this sort of argument has always struck me as somewhat paranoid- that is not meant to be an insult, but I just don't know what other word to use.

    2. OK, here's my rationale for removing the loophole: first, can we agree that it should be illegal for a convicted felon to purchase a gun? Under the current law in most states, this cannot be enforced because a felon can simply purchase a gun from a private seller by lying to the seller that he is NOT a felon- this is already an illegal sale, but it happens all the time because it only takes one person to knowingly break the law- the buyer. Now if we remove the loophole and force everyone to have a background check, the difference will be that in order to have an illegal sale, it will take TWO people to break the law: both the buyer and the seller. According to law enforcement, that will have a significant effect on bringing down the number of illegal sales, and thus gun crimes.

    3. Again, I have to rely on the recommendations of law enforcement regarding gun magazines. The limitation is not going to have any effect whatsoever on gun crimes, but is designed specifically to have an effect on mass shootings- the idea being that if the shooter is forced to reload, it will be easier to take him down while reloading, thus lives will be saved. Obviously the example most often given is Jared Loughner.

    4. My fear of guns is a personal phobia, but I don't want it to affect my judgment on these issues. Some of you apparently have a fear of government that I might consider irrational. Hopefully we can rely on rationality in terms of discussing all of these issues.
     
  4. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    Understand, there is no such thing as a 'gun show loophole'. The law at gun shows is exactly the same as it is everywhere else. Under The Constitution, we have the right to assemble peacefully. You can't just walk into a gun show and buy anything off the table you want to. There are people walking around with guns to sell privately, but it's a very small part of the sales there.

    The problem we have with the background checks isn't the check. It's the compilation of the information. The information taken on the form you fill out to to a background check isn't as well protected as it should be. Understand, registration inevitably leads to confiscation. (Yes, really.)

    Do you think your government is more trustworthy now than it was when The Constitution was written? Consider the possibility that the reason armed resistance against the government seems like such a remote possibility is the fact that our armed population has been a strong deterrent since the nation has existed.

    If men with arms are no match for the U.S. military, why can't we finish off al-Queda? Since Obama has been president, Americans have bought enough guns to arm the armies of Russia, China, and India COMBINED. Let's say that the law comes down, come turn them all in, it's done. If even one percent of gun owners resist that order, do you have any idea how many people that is? Compared to all of the police and military in the nation?

    The problem with 'mild' or 'common sense' gun control measures, is that they never stop there. It's called creeping incrementalism. Impose one infringement, wait for it to sink in, then impose more. Remember that with gun control laws in 1934, 1968, 1984, and 1989, they were all supposed to do the job, right? If they were working, why do we need more? Dianne Feinstein, Barack Obama, and Janet Reno have all flat said that they don't think that people should be allowed to own guns. (I know that you haven't heard this, you have to do some homework to learn what your politicians REALLY think.) They don't just want evil black rifles. They want them all.
     
  5. Siaharok

    Siaharok Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    47
    Location:
    USA
    So you have 2 arguments here: 1) that you personally don't believe that we are close to a tyrannical government; and 2) that you don't think small arms would make a difference even if we were. I'll address each one separately.

    1) That's your opinion. Your personal opinion. You may be right. But what about people who have a different opinion? Personally, I tend to agree with you. We're not there yet. But what if the reason we're not there yet is PRECISELY because of the 2nd Amendment? This brings us to...

    2a) Small arms are effective against the US Military. This is not up for debate. There are too many examples in modern history. Small arms have wreaked havoc against the most technologically advanced military in the world.

    2b) You also assume that American citizens would be fighting against the US Military. That's a mistaken assumption. You forgot about posse comitatus. The minute the government starts using the military against its own people, there would be nation-wide revolution. They wouldn't use the military; they would use the Police.

    And that brings us to my basic stance on the 2nd Amendment: I believe that citizens should be free to have ANYTHING that the Police have. And I truly mean anything. If they can have full auto, I should be free to have it too. If they can have grenades, I should have them too. If I can't have grenades (that's fine), then the Police shouldn't have them either.

    Make sense?
     
  6. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    See, you just used the 'f' word. FORCE. NOW do you see why we are....paranoid?
     
  7. timmy4

    timmy4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    165
    Lots of questions. I'll do my best to answer them. I am not a troll. Please be patient...
     
  8. nickn10

    nickn10 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    113
    Location:
    Fremont County, Colorado
    Timmy, I've been in the military, been in law enforcement and retired from the Colorado Dept of Corrections. I am not "scared" of guns, I've taken an oath to protect the Constitution, including the Bill Of Rights while in those above occupations. I don't know how old you are or what your life experiences have been but I can state that the ability to protect yourself, your family and even your country requires a firearm. Don't think for one second that because this is The United States that we are immune to bad things happening to ourselves by individuals, mobs or even our own government. Back when the Bill of Rights was written the army had single shot muskets and so did the civilians. Now however you surely know what weapons the government, be it city, state, or national have at their disposal. Simply put I don't trust any government to have my best interests as their primary goal, therefore I want the best equipment I can get to protect myself with. The latest fiasco proposed by Feinstein does nothing but disarm me and takes away my ability to defend myself against "all enemies both foreign and domestic", hopefully you know where that quote came from. In a nut shell I want the government to fear me rather than I fear them, and they are changing the rules against us.
     
  9. BobTheTomato

    BobTheTomato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    610
    Location:
    Alabama
    I would guess the 100,000,000 people murdered by their own governments in the 20th century didn't think that their government would shoot them in head, starve them to death, put them in gas chambers ect. If you don't think our government is capable of doing bad things to people don't forget the USA put people of Japenese decent into camps during WWII. They intentionally infected African Americans with syphilis to see what would happen (and they knew without a doubt that antibiotics were needed did nothing). They have killed Americans with drone strikes who had not been convicted in a court of law. But I suppose your right, the government just wants what is good for us. In most cases we have been taught since grade school that the government is good and benevolent. Well if you look at history you will see that in many cases those in power have done horrible things to others. Or I'm just cynical.

    Also, if 10 round are okay what can it be restricted to? 7? 5? 3? 1? Just curious......
     
  10. CmdrSlander

    CmdrSlander Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,203
    Location:
    Disputed Western Missouri
    Private arms can resist a tyrannical government, again look at the rebellions in foreign climes. There is saying that goes "if you don't have fully automatic rifles on day one of the rebellion you will have them on day two" - the implication is quite relevant: a civilian firearm may not allow you to topple a tyranical regime, but is enough firepower to bust into an armory, hijack a transport, assassinate an enemy leader, take control of a nuclear device from its guardians, raid an ammo dump, steal a tank or a helicopter, and so on. A gun is the first step on a continuum of force in a rebellion, not the only step.
     
  11. timmy4

    timmy4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    165
    I've never really thought about it too much. I believe in free speech, in general, but there are reasonable limitations (Obviously, the famous one of shouting "fire" in a theater is the best example of a limitation.) All of the Bill of Rights have limitations.
     
  12. timmy4

    timmy4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    165
    Yes. I think that would be unreasonable. You should as a private citizen be allowed to own modern day weapons- within reason. I don't think, however, this right should be unlimited.
     
  13. CmdrSlander

    CmdrSlander Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,203
    Location:
    Disputed Western Missouri
    Actually, there is not limitation on shouting fire in a crowded theater, I could go do it right now. They don't tape my mouth shut and bind my hands when I go into a theater. You can get punished for it after you actually do it, and only then. This very different from gun laws which disarm you in the first place to stop you from possibly doing something. Gun laws are like rendering people mute to combat hate speech.

    Gun laws should work exactly like free speech restrictions work: you can say whatever you want and you only get in trouble if it hurts people, so with guns, I should be able to own any arm (remember arms do not equal ordnance, such a nuclear bombs) I want but should be punished if I misuse it.
     
  14. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    Is your perception of what is 'within reason' just a product of what you have been exposed to and have been conditioned to think is normal?
     
  15. skeeziks

    skeeziks Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Messages:
    395
    "All of the Bill of Rights have limitations."

    And who put these limitations on the BOR?
     
  16. timmy4

    timmy4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    165
    As I wrote earlier, I think that everyone of the Bill of Rights has reasonable limitations to them. Most of the questions you raise are examples of unreasonable limitations. I don't think that is analogous to the gun control measures currently being proposed, but one way or another, the courts will decide.
     
  17. timmy4

    timmy4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    165
    Thank you for your service.
     
  18. Odd Job
    • Contributing Member

    Odd Job Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Messages:
    5,955
    Location:
    London (ex SA)
    Timmy4, the issue doesn't even have to come down to the 2nd Amendment. The fundamental problem is that they are trying to ban firearms or accessories thereof which have been shown to be involved in a very small percentage of unjustified homicides over the years.
    If you had a look at the stats in the UK or SA or Australia, you would find the same thing: rifles are rarely used as a murder weapon. There is no evidence to suggest that the capacity of the magazines has any influence on the number of deaths and criminal injuries caused by any firearm.
    The fact remains that the majority of criminal injuries and deaths due to firearms are from handguns. We can have a separate debate about the use of handguns for legitimate and for criminal purposes but the crux of the matter now is as follows:

    1) The Sandy Hook shooting was such a terrible and evil crime with the loss of so many young kids that it caused untold heartache and left a bitter taste in the mouths of pro and anti gun persons alike, worldwide.

    2) What amplified this was that an apparent weed, a young nobody who we would ordinarily not even spare the time of day, was able to get hold of a firearm and go to a place where he could efficiently kill multiple innocents unchallenged, all by himself.

    3) Instead of focusing on the root cause of this event (how this young man arrived at the conclusion that killing innocent people was the solution to his problem), the media and certain political "factions" are focusing on the tool used to commit this atrocity.

    The majority of law-abiding armed citizens are being penalized for the acts of the few. That's the easy road, to ban guns and parts for guns.
    The hard road is to ask why society in general is drifting towards a centralised "nanny" mentality where individual responsibility and good old fashioned home-taught morals are becoming rare.
    And that is the crux of the matter: with individual rights comes individual responsibility.
    The government has an objective to chip away at both of those and unfortunately the majority of the population is happy to go along with it. That's how the UK has been and that seems to be the way the US is headed.
     
  19. itchy1

    itchy1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    186
    Location:
    KY
    Here's my .02. As has already been mentioned, the 2A is the ultimate failsafe against a corrupted government that would attempt to take away the major freedoms of its citizens. This failsafe is only effective if the body of citizens has adequate firepower to keep its government in check. The big qusetion has always been, just where do we draw the line as to what level of firepower that the citizens can possess? The 2A was left open in this respect to allow for whatever level would be necessary to acheive this check or balance. I feel that the current restrictions that are in place has already pushed this line as far as it can go before the citizens lose their ability to present a real deterence for would be dictators. I believe that this is why so many of us refer to the
    2A as a protective order against further government restrictions. 30 round magazines and military style rifles in the hands of millions of law abiding citizens should not strike fear into the heart of a government that was originally set up to be a service to its people.
     
  20. Skribs

    Skribs Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,807
    Location:
    Lakewood, Washington
    #1, as has been said in this thread, despite all our technology, the majority of war is fought with boots on the ground. Those infantrymen are vulnerable to small arms fire. A lot of countries half-a-world-away are learning that dissidents with guns are a very real threat.

    #2, if you cannot trust that felon with a gun, why can you trust him around any other weapon, or even people? If there someone you think, based on his personal history, is likely to cause harm to another person, that person should be kept away from civilization (i.e. in prison). If you trust someone enough to be in society, around kitchen knives, cars, and piano wire, you should be able to trust them with a firearm.

    #3, reloads happen very fast, usually not fast enough to rush the individual before he is ready to start firing again. It will have a much bigger impact on a "prepared enough" civilian. I go by LE recommendations, too. They DON'T limit their capacity, and this is a group of people who usually chooses when to engage the perp and brings backup. If I'm by myself, caught unaware, I want every advantage I can get.

    #4, I have a very real fear of the government, because right now they are seeking to limit my rights and brand me a second class citizen. Would you have said that a black man in the south in 1820 would have an irrational fear of the government? How about a black man in the south in 1950 having an irrational fear of his white neighbors? Like I said, if you go the range, you'll find that gun owners are a kind, safe group of people, and it's actually a lot of fun. If you practice the four safety rules, owning a gun is no more dangerous than owning a set of golf clubs.
     
  21. BobTheTomato

    BobTheTomato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    610
    Location:
    Alabama
  22. timmy4

    timmy4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    165
    Frankly, I'm not sure the restriction should be 10. Anything less than 10 seems unreasonable to me. But 30 seems too high.
     
  23. CmdrSlander

    CmdrSlander Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,203
    Location:
    Disputed Western Missouri
    The definition of a reasonable limitation on gun rights has already been determined by DC vs Heller. The decision says you can ban any weapon which is not in common use for lawful purposes. Considering millions of people defend themselves, hunt, and target shoot with guns that are loaded with high capacity magazines, you cannot restrict them per DC vs Heller. They may not be necessary for those purposes but per the Court's decision, the fact that sane citizens use them for those purposes regularly is enough to protect them from restriction.
     
  24. timmy4

    timmy4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    Messages:
    165
    This is an excellent question. I would of course like to answer you that my sense of reason is absolute. But what you suggest may also be correct. None of us can escape our life experiences.
     
  25. StockKahr

    StockKahr Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    57
    Okay... Too high to do what?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page