Guys, please educate me on this 2nd Amendment Issue, I'm trying to understand

[Timmy]

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

The main reason for the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from the government. GB tried to confiscate everyones weapons before our Revolution.


If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

We didn't stop the sale of booze, drugs, prostitution....

You mean like the guy who shot those Dallas police officers ? He's a 2nd amendment hero?

care to be more specific?

and please explain your accusation.

Yes . Righties say we need these guns to fight off an oppressive government. dallas shooter sees police killing his kind and getting away with it . So he fights back against the oppressive government.

What would "fighting back " in your mind entail? That's your talking point .

Please show me where I said "fighting back". You are quoting me, but I can't seem to find it.

Was the mans actions justified or was it a reaction to the leftist lies the media keeps spewing?

By "you" I mean the gun crowd .

Two thumbs said it in this thread :" The main reason for the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from the government."

 

[Two Thumbs]

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

The main reason for the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from the government. GB tried to confiscate everyones weapons before our Revolution.


If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

We didn't stop the sale of booze, drugs, prostitution....

You mean like the guy who shot those Dallas police officers ? He's a 2nd amendment hero?

care to be more specific?

and please explain your accusation.

Yes . Righties say we need these guns to fight off an oppressive government. dallas shooter sees police killing his kind and getting away with it . So he fights back against the oppressive government.

What would "fighting back " in your mind entail? That's your talking point .

Please show me where I said "fighting back". You are quoting me, but I can't seem to find it.

Was the mans actions justified or was it a reaction to the leftist lies the media keeps spewing?

By "you" I mean the gun crowd .

Two thumbs said it in this thread :" The main reason for the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from the government."

Was the mans actions justified or was it a reaction to the leftist lies the media keeps spewing?

 

[Timmy]

You mean like the guy who shot those Dallas police officers ? He's a 2nd amendment hero?

care to be more specific?

and please explain your accusation.

Yes . Righties say we need these guns to fight off an oppressive government. dallas shooter sees police killing his kind and getting away with it . So he fights back against the oppressive government.

What would "fighting back " in your mind entail? That's your talking point .

Please show me where I said "fighting back". You are quoting me, but I can't seem to find it.

Was the mans actions justified or was it a reaction to the leftist lies the media keeps spewing?

By "you" I mean the gun crowd .

Two thumbs said it in this thread :" The main reason for the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from the government."

Was the mans actions justified or was it a reaction to the leftist lies the media keeps spewing?

Dude . Stuffs on video .

But hey. Eye of the beholder !

You tell me, what situation would justify "defending ourselves from the government."

 

[Two Thumbs]

care to be more specific?

and please explain your accusation.

Yes . Righties say we need these guns to fight off an oppressive government. dallas shooter sees police killing his kind and getting away with it . So he fights back against the oppressive government.

What would "fighting back " in your mind entail? That's your talking point .

Please show me where I said "fighting back". You are quoting me, but I can't seem to find it.

Was the mans actions justified or was it a reaction to the leftist lies the media keeps spewing?

By "you" I mean the gun crowd .

Two thumbs said it in this thread :" The main reason for the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from the government."

Was the mans actions justified or was it a reaction to the leftist lies the media keeps spewing?

Dude . Stuffs on video .

But hey. Eye of the beholder !

You tell me, what situation would justify "defending ourselves from the government."

so no, he was not justified, he was just another leftist twat that bought into your lies and went out to murder innocent people.

thank you, I knew you weren't smart enough to back your own non-sense up, just had to bait the hook.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The right to self-defense is the most basic human right. The right to bear arms is about the right to self-defense. The 2nd Amendment is the linchpin that holds all the other rights together. Without it they can take away all of the other rights.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Democrats, Marxist, Fascist, Terrorist, Totalitarianist and Criminals always want their victims to be unarmed and defenseless.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes . Righties say we need these guns to fight off an oppressive government. dallas shooter sees police killing his kind and getting away with it . So he fights back against the oppressive government.

That is simply ignorant as fuck.

The Dallas Shooter also said he wanted to kill white people. Most of the black people crying about mistreatment also believe that white people are oppressing them. You're trying to slippery slope this into an argument that any gun violence is justifiable rebellion against a tyrannical government.

But, because so many are oppressed, I think we should give them a shot at gaining liberty from the all-mighty whitey via an armed rebellion. Let's go ahead and have this fight.

As I have said many times before, my theory that WAR is the solution to all problems is proved yet again.

 

[Markle]

If the "arms" covered by the 2nd were muskets, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

Now, remember your elementary school grammar and punctuation.

Carefully read the first and second line.

 

[Mac1958]

If the "arms" covered by the 2nd were muskets, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

Now, remember your elementary school grammar and punctuation.

Carefully read the first and second line.

... which doesn't change my point a bit.
.

 

[BlackSand]

...

The Founding Fathers when creating a new government did not envision people defending themselves against the government they were creating.

...

They just had a revolution you nit-wit ...

.

 

[Markle]

Maybe you might want to point out in that Wikipedia article where I am supposedly "not as you'd hope it would be."

MOST people don't need Wiki to explain this to them. Of course, they took English grammar and punctuation in elementary school.

Try it again now, slowly.

 

[Markle]

He had 112 minutes.

Policemen were on his floor and had targeted his room in TWELVE MINUTES. The shooter had stopped firing in TWELVE MINUTES.

Catch up, please.

 

[Markle]

Good responses guys thanks.

I wrote a long response but I have a habit of doing that, so I will just be quick and state, I understand why people support the 2nd Amendment, and why there is logic to support even autos. I will say, if somehow the government became tyrannic, the imbalance in weapons would be massive, and even 1000 automatic weapons wouldn't tip the scale. From missiles, to advanced technology and satellite use etc. Any attempts to try and balance the battle purely from a military standpoint, would require theft from the government and/or external government assistance (as the French once did to help America fight the British). So, I think support for automatics and the like to fight a tyrannic government isn't a realistic benefit/reason.

The vast majority of gun owners are responsible and law abiding. I wish this narrative would receive more airtime in Canada and in other outlets. At the same time, I don't think the outrage against autos and modifiers is misplaced.

 

[Markle]

When the Bill of Rights was written the States Militia's were the first line of defense against foreign invaders. They were under the President. They were made up a citizens who were mostly White male property owners. I'm sure they never dreamed of the weapons we have available to all of us now.

Certainly not, they never had a clue as to the weapons available today but, they SURE KNEW MEN AND WOMEN!

 

[Rustic]

As someone who has never grown up with weapons, outside of video games; I need to understand the issue some have with the Second Amendment and automatics.

I appreciate your Constitution, and really I envy it in fact being from Canada as I think it's an amazing document, but far more important, a cherished document defended by so many. So, even those who I may disagree with in general on certain issues, I certainly respect your position on this.

Now I'd like to be educated by those who know alot more than I do about this issue as all I hear in Canada is "gun control gun control. gun control". Many left wing Americans going to CBC and other Canadian networks and promoting this idea, basically criminalizing anyone who supports the Second Amendment in some cases, and I instinctively know there are two sides to this issue.

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

Thoughts on this? Should it be banned? Should ownership of fully automatics come with legal consequences or is there a logical argument for ownership of this weapon?

Thanks in advance.

Slippery slope and its none of the federal government's business on firearm ownership...

 

[Rustic]

As someone who has never grown up with weapons, outside of video games; I need to understand the issue some have with the Second Amendment and automatics.

I appreciate your Constitution, and really I envy it in fact being from Canada as I think it's an amazing document, but far more important, a cherished document defended by so many. So, even those who I may disagree with in general on certain issues, I certainly respect your position on this.

Now I'd like to be educated by those who know alot more than I do about this issue as all I hear in Canada is "gun control gun control. gun control". Many left wing Americans going to CBC and other Canadian networks and promoting this idea, basically criminalizing anyone who supports the Second Amendment in some cases, and I instinctively know there are two sides to this issue.

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

Thoughts on this? Should it be banned? Should ownership of fully automatics come with legal consequences or is there a logical argument for ownership of this weapon?

Thanks in advance.

Probably the worst sticking point here (among a few) is that it's pretty easy to understand that the Founding Fathers didn't/couldn't foresee the massive improvements in weaponry.

If the "arms" covered by the 2nd were muskets, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.

But the REAL problem is that, now that the issue is politicized, it's necessarily dumbed down to bumper-sticker sloganeering and intellectual dishonesty.

Because that's how we roll.
.

Wrong, The Constitution is a living document. It's made to adapt overtime...

 

[Rustic]

My Canadian friend I'll explain to you very simply - here in United States we have many gun nuts, people who love guns not for any practical reason, but out of emotional attachment. Guns feel so damn cool, they satisfy control and fear impulses and feeds into the whole freedom fighter ideological thing...and of course all that gets slightly spoiled if you can't have the biggest, baddest gun around.

There is only one reason assault conversion kits exist - to convert guns into those of illegal sort. There is not a single rational reason that those kits should remain legal while assault weapons are illegal...but it's not about rationality, it's about wanting that big gun and preserving the loophole to be able to get it.

My snowflake friend, firearm ownership is none of the federal government's business and yours as well.

 

[Rustic]

Is there any practical reason for someone to have a full automatic, and/or these modifiers other than mass murder?

The main reason for the 2nd is to be able to defend ourselves from the government. GB tried to confiscate everyones weapons before our Revolution.


If these weapons are being legally sold, and from I understand the modifiers are a work around to the law; unless there is a good argument why they should be allowed, there has to be a way to stop legal store owners from selling this modifier.

We didn't stop the sale of booze, drugs, prostitution....

What utter nonsense.

The Founding Fathers when creating a new government did not envision people defending themselves against the government they were creating.

The 2nd amendment was written so states could form militias to defend themselves against Indians and foreign invasions. It was written before the U.S. had a standing army. The 2nd amendment is now obsolete and is being misinterpreted by a bunch of guntards.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

um, maybe not exactly as you'd hope it would be.

when people disagree, this "you're full of shit, i'm right" is why we can't have nice things anymore.

Modern scholars Thomas B. McAffee and Michael J. Quinlan have stated that James Madison "did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions."[72] In contrast, historian Jack Rakove suggests that Madison's intention in framing the Second Amendment was to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that the militias would not be disarmed

Na, The Constitution protects us from our own federal government

 

[Rustic]

Gun control can work, but this country is too bought and paid for my lobbyists and the NRA for anything to ever change.

We had a competent president in office when dozens of children were murdered at school and not only did nothing change, gun laws on the whole become more lenient as a result.

So there is NO way anything is changing knowing the president we have and the fact that our government is still bought and paid for.

Na, firearms have no control over people. People kill people not firearms

 

[Rustic]

Kinda crazy to watch intellectually developed President speak after witnessing Trump for half a year.

Barry is a shit stain, And a control freak