Any Candidate for Restoring the 2nd Amendment?

[shintao]

Watch this video. Now imagine these just these 2 guys are terrorists coming through your neighborhood. Then tell me how that semi-auto stacks up against weapons our government will sell foreigners, but not you for your families protection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsOWSDtxERU

A semi-auto assault rifle is a more than enough deterrent for most situations. AK.s, Mini-14's, M-1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M-14, are all still very effective weapons. I have a thousand rounds of 30 06 rounds in the bangoliers in an old Army trunk from WWII. The copper is probably worth more than the rounds but I could shoot that crap all day and the old M-1 is a true knock down weapon. The point is you don't need some spiffy new AC556 or M16 to kick lot's of ass, although a class 3 license and a heavy supression weapon would be an ideal bonus for any small civilian unit wishing to open up some much deserved payback to the U.S. government.

There should be no license, no regulations, and no gun laws.

For people like you I suggest a 1919 water cooled Browning .30 cal with a easily modified receiver converting the old semi-auto versions to full auto. Low cost, easy maintenance, but a 1 way ticket to a federal pound me in the ass prison when caught.

LMAO! I qualified expert with the M14, and was issued an M16 a week before I went to nam. Shot 1 clip & packed it. In 1967 nam I had an M16, 45colt, 45 WII Greasegun, and a Browning fifty caliber. We had a large conex packed with weapons and you just strolled through, picked out what you wanted and signed for it. What we didn't have was shot guns. Could have used those with riot rounds. The blooper shot shotgun rounds, one at a time. You had to crack it, and reload, very inefficient. Good with grenades.

 

[Charles_Main]

Watch this video. Now imagine these just these 2 guys are terrorists coming through your neighborhood. Then tell me how that semi-auto stacks up against weapons our government will sell foreigners, but not you for your families protection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsOWSDtxERU

One thing you are leaving out. The shoot out depicted in this video prompted Police forces around the nation to issue each squad car large caliber Semi Automatic rifles standard. Those 2 guys would have been brought down much faster had that been the case before this shoot out.

I am confident that the M1 Carbine or 30-006 I have could deal with someone armored like that pretty well With the right bullets that is

.

The vid was just to show a real life condition of how important the restoration of the 2nd Amendment is.

You wont get an argument from me on that count. Though I think the most important reason is not so we can defend ourselves from Common criminals. I think our right to bear arms is the last, and possibly most important check in the system of check and balances on our Governments power.

I like the fact that they have in the back of their minds the nearly 300 Million privately held guns in America when they make their governing decisions

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This is a very good question, especially considering the fact that "con"gress has now nullified the Posse Comitatus Act. There's only one reason, their plan to use the military against the American people.

Bush did that, of course. But don't worry, Congress repealed those changes in 2008.

 

[shintao]

One thing you are leaving out. The shoot out depicted in this video prompted Police forces around the nation to issue each squad car large caliber Semi Automatic rifles standard. Those 2 guys would have been brought down much faster had that been the case before this shoot out.

I am confident that the M1 Carbine or 30-006 I have could deal with someone armored like that pretty well With the right bullets that is

.

The vid was just to show a real life condition of how important the restoration of the 2nd Amendment is.

You wont get an argument from me on that count. Though I think the most important reason is not so we can defend ourselves from Common criminals. I think our right to bear arms is the last, and possibly most important check in the system of check and balances on our Governments power.

I like the fact that they have in the back of their minds the nearly 300 Million privately held guns in America when they make their governing decisions

Yes indeed. And I am afraid we are going to lose them if we don't radically fight back & pressure every representative (dem/rep) to repeal all gun laws. We need laws against people, not against objects. If a rebellion or revolution of any size occurs they will grab our guns. I know that is the plan (paranoid thinking here), the UN wants them, they took the Canadian guns, and our own government took Iraqi citizen guns. I think they were allowed 1 per household. Most houses have four or more sides to defend, and several people living there to be defended.

 

[Charles_Main]

.

The vid was just to show a real life condition of how important the restoration of the 2nd Amendment is.

You wont get an argument from me on that count. Though I think the most important reason is not so we can defend ourselves from Common criminals. I think our right to bear arms is the last, and possibly most important check in the system of check and balances on our Governments power.

I like the fact that they have in the back of their minds the nearly 300 Million privately held guns in America when they make their governing decisions

Yes indeed. And I am afraid we are going to lose them if we don't radically fight back & pressure every representative (dem/rep) to repeal all gun laws. We need laws against people, not against objects. If a rebellion or revolution of any size occurs they will grab our guns. I know that is the plan (paranoid thinking here), the UN wants them, they took the Canadian guns, and our own government took Iraqi citizen guns. I think they were allowed 1 per household. Most houses have four or more sides to defend, and several people living there to be defended.

So you would draw no line at all? Would you want people to be able to own RPG's or A tank?

 

[shintao]

You wont get an argument from me on that count. Though I think the most important reason is not so we can defend ourselves from Common criminals. I think our right to bear arms is the last, and possibly most important check in the system of check and balances on our Governments power.

I like the fact that they have in the back of their minds the nearly 300 Million privately held guns in America when they make their governing decisions

Yes indeed. And I am afraid we are going to lose them if we don't radically fight back & pressure every representative (dem/rep) to repeal all gun laws. We need laws against people, not against objects. If a rebellion or revolution of any size occurs they will grab our guns. I know that is the plan (paranoid thinking here), the UN wants them, they took the Canadian guns, and our own government took Iraqi citizen guns. I think they were allowed 1 per household. Most houses have four or more sides to defend, and several people living there to be defended.

So you would draw no line at all? Would you want people to be able to own RPG's or A tank?

People already do, but no I have no problem with it. You could buy a full gunned battle ship if you want. They might plug your guns if you are a US citizen, but what if you are a Samolian or such? We sell jets & stuff on the internet. It is the person using the object, and not the object. If the purpose of the 2nd was to protect us from our government, shouldn't my family be protected with the same weapons my government uses and sells to our enemies? The same weapons the UN military have. I would rather see an RPG stored in every closet, than to have them used against defenseless citizens. I want equal opportunity.

I am sure our founding fathers looked around the American populace and decided how the 2nd should be wrote. They excluded no criminal or insane or radical, they made no exception, they said shall not be infringed. They knew each citizen should be able to defend himself against a corrupt government. So no exceptions to objects. They had cannons, so why not mortars?

The argument of atom bombs & the like. I am sure some of these billionaires have touched or owned such devices, and nothing went boom yet. The plans were once available in libraries.

 

[shintao]

In fact, the perfect model of unrestrained gun use was Iraq. They all owed and packed guns, and fired them off in celebrations. No one was just out randomly killing people until we got there. They were civilized, so if it was good enough for Iraq, why should we have less in the freest nation on earth, or close to it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes indeed. And I am afraid we are going to lose them if we don't radically fight back & pressure every representative (dem/rep) to repeal all gun laws. We need laws against people, not against objects. If a rebellion or revolution of any size occurs they will grab our guns. I know that is the plan (paranoid thinking here), the UN wants them, they took the Canadian guns, and our own government took Iraqi citizen guns. I think they were allowed 1 per household. Most houses have four or more sides to defend, and several people living there to be defended.

So you would draw no line at all? Would you want people to be able to own RPG's or A tank?

People already do, but no I have no problem with it. You could buy a full gunned battle ship if you want. They might plug your guns if you are a US citizen, but what if you are a Samolian or such? We sell jets & stuff on the internet. It is the person using the object, and not the object. If the purpose of the 2nd was to protect us from our government, shouldn't my family be protected with the same weapons my government uses and sells to our enemies? The same weapons the UN military have. I would rather see an RPG stored in every closet, than to have them used against defenseless citizens. I want equal opportunity.

I am sure our founding fathers looked around the American populace and decided how the 2nd should be wrote. They excluded no criminal or insane or radical, they made no exception, they said shall not be infringed. They knew each citizen should be able to defend himself against a corrupt government. So no exceptions to objects. They had cannons, so why not mortars?

The argument of atom bombs & the like. I am sure some of these billionaires have touched or owned such devices, and nothing went boom yet. The plans were once available in libraries.

As a hypothetical.

You would be ok with the Koch brothers raising a private army in the US? Call it a "security force" and equip them with military grade equipment, like tanks and Humvee's?

 

[shintao]

So you would draw no line at all? Would you want people to be able to own RPG's or A tank?

People already do, but no I have no problem with it. You could buy a full gunned battle ship if you want. They might plug your guns if you are a US citizen, but what if you are a Samolian or such? We sell jets & stuff on the internet. It is the person using the object, and not the object. If the purpose of the 2nd was to protect us from our government, shouldn't my family be protected with the same weapons my government uses and sells to our enemies? The same weapons the UN military have. I would rather see an RPG stored in every closet, than to have them used against defenseless citizens. I want equal opportunity.

I am sure our founding fathers looked around the American populace and decided how the 2nd should be wrote. They excluded no criminal or insane or radical, they made no exception, they said shall not be infringed. They knew each citizen should be able to defend himself against a corrupt government. So no exceptions to objects. They had cannons, so why not mortars?

The argument of atom bombs & the like. I am sure some of these billionaires have touched or owned such devices, and nothing went boom yet. The plans were once available in libraries.

As a hypothetical.

You would be ok with the Koch brothers raising a private army in the US? Call it a "security force" and equip them with military grade equipment, like tanks and Humvee's?

No problem, as long as I have that same right,...............the same right the largest mercenary army in the world has (Black Water Xe).

 

[theDoctorisIn]

People already do, but no I have no problem with it. You could buy a full gunned battle ship if you want. They might plug your guns if you are a US citizen, but what if you are a Samolian or such? We sell jets & stuff on the internet. It is the person using the object, and not the object. If the purpose of the 2nd was to protect us from our government, shouldn't my family be protected with the same weapons my government uses and sells to our enemies? The same weapons the UN military have. I would rather see an RPG stored in every closet, than to have them used against defenseless citizens. I want equal opportunity.

I am sure our founding fathers looked around the American populace and decided how the 2nd should be wrote. They excluded no criminal or insane or radical, they made no exception, they said shall not be infringed. They knew each citizen should be able to defend himself against a corrupt government. So no exceptions to objects. They had cannons, so why not mortars?

The argument of atom bombs & the like. I am sure some of these billionaires have touched or owned such devices, and nothing went boom yet. The plans were once available in libraries.

As a hypothetical.

You would be ok with the Koch brothers raising a private army in the US? Call it a "security force" and equip them with military grade equipment, like tanks and Humvee's?

No problem, as long as I have that same right,...............the same right the largest mercenary army in the world has (Black Water Xe).

The right? Yes.

The money to? I doubt it...

 

[Annie]

I haven't heard anything about the two big freedom issues so far, Abortion and Gun Control. You might think those issues evaporated, but I suspect savy candidates on both sides are staying mum, afraid it will hurt thei chances taking on the unpopular opinions. And that says a lot for the coward rightys running for office and those coward voters who put them there.

I personally want all gun laws revoked as unConstitutional and the 2nd Amendment completely restored. But coward rightys are afraid to really be for Constitutional rights, so they hide in shadows and mumble a lot. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear to me of what the founding fathers meant, andthere was no exceptions noted, so I assume it referred to We The People, all of us, not some of us. Guess rightys have no guts to stand up for the constitution, and spent 6 years under Bush in complete control of the 2nd Amendment and did nothing to change it, nada.

So come on you coward rightys, let me hear you whine & make excuses.

2nd amendment is making a comeback:

Judge rules concealed carry ban unconstitutional

Judge rules concealed carry ban unconstitutional

by WRN Contributor on October 14, 2010

in Crime & Courts

A Clark County judge says Wisconsin’s ban on carrying concealed weapons is unconstitutional. In the case, authorities charged a Sauk City man with carrying a concealed weapon, after he admitted he had a knife in his waistband. He never threatened anyone. In light of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, attorney William Poss filed a motion to dismiss the case on constitutional grounds. Judge Jon Counsell obliged Wednesday, ruling the law is overly broad and violates both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.

“The government has to have a compelling state interest to do so (restrict the right to carry) and they have to have the least restrictive means of doing that,” said Poss. “Public safety obviously is a state interest, but there’s all kinds of ways to do that in this regard.” In his decision, Counsell states the law forces citizens to “go unarmed (thus not able to act in self defense), violate the law or carry openly,” but notes displaying weapon’s openly isn’t a “realistic alternative.”

As of now, the decision only sets a precedent in Counsell’s court, but Poss expects the case will be appealed. “It’s ultimately going to get to either the Wisconsin Supreme Court and or the United States Supreme Court one way or another,” he predicted. The decision was disseminated around the state Wednesday, and Poss already had 50 congratulatory phone messages or e-mails from colleagues by Wednesday afternoon. “There’s a lot of interest in this obviously,” he said. “It’s not a left or right type of thing quite frankly. It’s a liberty thing.”

...

Abortion as an issue, stirs many people from both sides of the issue. However, this election cycle really is about deficits, taxes, unemployment. Oh yeah, and the government listening to what they people consider important.

 

[shintao]

As a hypothetical.

You would be ok with the Koch brothers raising a private army in the US? Call it a "security force" and equip them with military grade equipment, like tanks and Humvee's?

No problem, as long as I have that same right,...............the same right the largest mercenary army in the world has (Black Water Xe).

The right? Yes.

The money to? I doubt it...

Yes, money could be a problem. When you lack money you prepare to fight a different kind of war, guerrilla warfare. As you can see, the enemy guerrillas in the ME have worn down the finest fighting force in the world, at about 3 bodies a day and trillions of dollars of money and equipment in an area the size of Texas. How much has Koch got to spend? LOL!

 

[shintao]

2nd amendment is making a comeback:[\quote]

That is always good news. I am not sure how states acquired the right to interfer with the 2nd Amendment to begin with.

Abortion as an issue, stirs many people from both sides of the issue. However, this election cycle really is about deficits, taxes, unemployment. Oh yeah, and the government listening to what they people consider important.

True. Personally, I oppose abortion in most cases (because I am male), but believe a women's right (freedom to chose) to chose (as long as that is the law), should have that right. Women have had abortions since time immortal, and like prostitution, it isn't going to change, even if it kills them.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Watch this video. Now imagine these just these 2 guys are terrorists coming through your neighborhood. Then tell me how that semi-auto stacks up against weapons our government will sell foreigners, but not you for your families protection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsOWSDtxERU

A semi-auto assault rifle is a more than enough deterrent for most situations. AK.s, Mini-14's, M-1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M-14, are all still very effective weapons. I have a thousand rounds of 30 06 rounds in the bangoliers in an old Army trunk from WWII. The copper is probably worth more than the rounds but I could shoot that crap all day and the old M-1 is a true knock down weapon. The point is you don't need some spiffy new AC556 or M16 to kick lot's of ass, although a class 3 license and a heavy supression weapon would be an ideal bonus for any small civilian unit wishing to open up some much deserved payback to the U.S. government.

There should be no license, no regulations, and no gun laws.

For people like you I suggest a 1919 water cooled Browning .30 cal with a easily modified receiver converting the old semi-auto versions to full auto. Low cost, easy maintenance, but a 1 way ticket to a federal pound me in the ass prison when caught.

LMAO! I qualified expert with the M14, and was issued an M16 a week before I went to nam. Shot 1 clip & packed it. In 1967 nam I had an M16, 45colt, 45 WII Greasegun, and a Browning fifty caliber. We had a large conex packed with weapons and you just strolled through, picked out what you wanted and signed for it. What we didn't have was shot guns. Could have used those with riot rounds. The blooper shot shotgun rounds, one at a time. You had to crack it, and reload, very inefficient. Good with grenades.

Cool, then you know what I mean. I'm not really disagreeing with you, rather, I just don't think what you are asking for is practical from a realistic stand point. You sound like a patriot, I admire that, and admire your service but what I'm trying to impress upon you is that there is simply no way to get back what you want without going though the courts, and with the tyrants on the SCOTUS presently, you may actually end up LOSING more by putting all your eggs in 1 basket. The recent 2nd amendment decisions were wonderful, however, they where also only by a 5-4 margin and DC and Chicago essentially ignored them. Just saying.

 

[shintao]

A semi-auto assault rifle is a more than enough deterrent for most situations. AK.s, Mini-14's, M-1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M-14, are all still very effective weapons. I have a thousand rounds of 30 06 rounds in the bangoliers in an old Army trunk from WWII. The copper is probably worth more than the rounds but I could shoot that crap all day and the old M-1 is a true knock down weapon. The point is you don't need some spiffy new AC556 or M16 to kick lot's of ass, although a class 3 license and a heavy supression weapon would be an ideal bonus for any small civilian unit wishing to open up some much deserved payback to the U.S. government.

There should be no license, no regulations, and no gun laws.

For people like you I suggest a 1919 water cooled Browning .30 cal with a easily modified receiver converting the old semi-auto versions to full auto. Low cost, easy maintenance, but a 1 way ticket to a federal pound me in the ass prison when caught.

LMAO! I qualified expert with the M14, and was issued an M16 a week before I went to nam. Shot 1 clip & packed it. In 1967 nam I had an M16, 45colt, 45 WII Greasegun, and a Browning fifty caliber. We had a large conex packed with weapons and you just strolled through, picked out what you wanted and signed for it. What we didn't have was shot guns. Could have used those with riot rounds. The blooper shot shotgun rounds, one at a time. You had to crack it, and reload, very inefficient. Good with grenades.

Cool, then you know what I mean. I'm not really disagreeing with you, rather, I just don't think what you are asking for is practical from a realistic stand point. You sound like a patriot, I admire that, and admire your service but what I'm trying to impress upon you is that there is simply no way to get back what you want without going though the courts, and with the tyrants on the SCOTUS presently, you may actually end up LOSING more by putting all your eggs in 1 basket. The recent 2nd amendment decisions were wonderful, however, they where also only by a 5-4 margin and DC and Chicago essentially ignored them. Just saying.

We would never pass it without the 3 branches in one hand, so that is why I was so disappointed in the republicans. I wonder if it could be done by an Executive order? It is not an issue that requires funding, rather defunding all the anti-gun programs and laws. Once accomplished, I doubt a next president would dare touch it. Meantime the courts would get crazy for awhile. Its not like we need a constitutional convention.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I haven't heard anything about the two big freedom issues so far, Abortion and Gun Control.

What does the right to defend yourself have to do with pinko billionaires butchering innocent babies?

Surely you are not trying to equate freedom with killing babies for profit?

Killing innocent babies is not freedom, it is pure evil.

Abortion is a freedom issue. Gun control is a freedom issue. That is why I stated, "two big freedom issues." These are, and have been the two top issues for years of political history, clearly defining the difference between republicans and democrats. You would have to ask Bill Frist about killing babies for profit, for me it is a women's right to chose, which is freedom.

Now why aren't the republicans beating the drum on abortion or gun control when they have millions pouring in Internationally to aid their advertising? Why are they hiding these issues at election time? I would think restoring the 2nd would be a patriotic thing to do.

Abortion is a freedom issue for whom? The morther or the baby?

when they have millions pouring in Internationally to aid their advertising?

OH I see where you are going with this sneaky little bastard. Where is your proof that republicans are bringing in millions from International sources? The white House lied and you are continuing with the lie.