How do you view our gun policy and second amendment?

[buddhallah_the_christ]

For reference from our Bill of Rights: 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.
What is the American view of this policy, gun ownership in general and does it exist outside of the US?
Why do we own weapon? Who makes all his or her best to limit this right?
I don;t understand the very sense of this amendment?

 

[Wake]

What about it do you find difficulty understanding?

Let's start there.

 

[DarkFury]

For reference from our Bill of Rights: 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.
What is the American view of this policy, gun ownership in general and does it exist outside of the US?
Why do we own weapon? Who makes all his or her best to limit this right?
I don;t understand the very sense of this amendment?

 

[Little-Acorn]

For reference from our Bill of Rights: 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.
What is the American view of this policy, gun ownership in general

You've been here more than half a year.

And after the millions of words we have all written on the subject, you still don't know what our view is?

 

[Wake]

Unless, of course, he's playing dumb.

More than a few partisans do this crap.

 

[amrchaos]

(joke)

It says "....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The keyword is arms. A firearm is a type or arms. So are polearms, swords, knives, cannons, artillery, tanks, fighter jets and even missles. They are all arms. However we are restricted to have any of these.

If a tyrannical militia like the SS under Obama stormed my place, I would have nothing but this 12 gauge. The Obama SS would have me for toast!!

Give us back our full rights!! A tank is an arm!! Where is my right to own and bear a tank? Where is my right to an ICBM--I'll show those terrorists something then!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For reference from our Bill of Rights: 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.
What is the American view of this policy, gun ownership in general and does it exist outside of the US?
Why do we own weapon? Who makes all his or her best to limit this right?
I don;t understand the very sense of this amendment?

The Supreme Court doesn t want to touch the Second Amendment this term. Here s why.

 

[DarkFury]

(joke)

It says "....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The keyword is arms. A firearm is a type or arms. So are polearms, swords, knives, cannons, artillery, tanks, fighter jets and even missles. They are all arms. However we are restricted to have any of these.

If a tyrannical militia like the SS under Obama stormed my place, I would have nothing but this 12 gauge. The Obama SS would have me for toast!!

Give us back our full rights!! A tank is an arm!! Where is my right to own and bear a tank? Where is my right to an ICBM--I'll show those terrorists something then!

BRITISH SCORPION TANK MODEL FV101

This is a beautifully redone Scorpion Light Tank in excellent condition. The Brits first accepted the Scorpion into service in 1970 and first production was in 1972 with a total of 3,000 being built by Alvis from 1972 to 1981. The WT. was 16,000 lbs. Length 17 ' 5" Width 7' Height 6' 10" and top speed is 50 MPH . Most of them were built using the Jaguar XK 4.2 Litre gas engine and the TN15X crossdrive semi-automatic 7 speed transmission. Some later built models used both the Perkins and the Cummins diesel engine. The Scorpion holds the Guinness world record for the fastest production Tank; Recorded doing 51 mph. at the Qineti vehicle test track, Chertsey,Surrey, on 26 March 2002 . The Scorpion uses the L23A1 76mm main gun ( 3"). Secondary gun, coaxial 7.62 mm L43A1.

PRICE: $79,500
LOCATION: BARNEVELD, WIS. 53507
Armor Page 1

 

[tyroneweaver]

can you imagine not having a weapon with the direction our government is going

 

[Mad Scientist]

The Bill of Rights is a list of things the Government CANNOT do to you.

It is not a "Policy".

 

[amrchaos]

OHHH, I can own my own tank!

oh 2nd amendment,if I was a multi-billionaire, I would take over a nation. Like Zimbabwe.

 

[Wake]

Observing how these agendas tend to 'nudge on' as time progresses, I do think it would be a wise move to purchase both firearms and ammo. If nothing happens, swell.

 

[DarkFury]

can you imagine not having a weapon with the direction our government is going

The funny thing is democrats tell you that you cannot own large weapons when in FACT that is NOT true. NOT even close to true.
I submit this...






SWISS BUILT 20 MM SOLOTHURN GUN ( LIVE)
It is the Cadillac of the 20mm family. They are very high quality Swiss machinery. This particular rifle I have owned since about 2000 and fired about 50 rounds since that time. This ATG is in excellent condition. The blue is strong, the interior is clean/bright and the barrel has strong/bold lands and grooves. The rifle has front bipod and rear monopod. Both iron sights and a Kern optical sight which is also illuminated, (note: the power unit for the optic is not there). Has a nicely detailed adjustable reticule. The original ammo is from various countries. The rifle itself shoots great. The original coffin which the gun came in is included. The rifle is on a Form 4 in the state of Wyoming and will transfer to an out of state FFL/SOT holder without difficulty . It is in excellent condition and comes with 15 original rounds, 25 reloaded rounds, 6 Magazines, original wooden coffin, Full spare parts kit and bipod.

PRICE : $23,000
LOCATION: CASPER, WYOMING 82609

You just have to know where to buy is all.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
WELL REGULATED - FIREARM

bolt or lever action only, 6 round maximum non detachable magazine.

.

 

[emilynghiem]

For reference from our Bill of Rights: 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.
What is the American view of this policy, gun ownership in general and does it exist outside of the US?
Why do we own weapon? Who makes all his or her best to limit this right?
I don;t understand the very sense of this amendment?

Dear buddhallah_the_christ
A.
I have found two different interpretations I think are both correct if people are allowed to follow their own
(and not impose on other people where political beliefs cause the same problems as with religious beliefs)
1. One is the interpretation that the guns only applies to "well regulated MILITIAS" and specifically STATE
militias or GOVT as the people. so it is about arming the official military, police, and other security personnel.
2. The other interpretation is that the PEOPLE refers to CITIZENS and it is to counteract the arms held
by the state. That the independent CITIZENRY cannot be disarmed by the state, as that opens the door
to political abuse to prevent checks on govt by the citizens themselves, including using arms when needed.

Both are valid, but historically it is more argued that #2 is the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
Those who believe in #1 will argue for that instead, and I believe that is equally valid for them under
Religious Freedom and Equal Protection of Creed from discrimination. So both interpretations deserve
protection and respect according to each person's Political Beliefs, right or wrong, justified or not.
As long as you take responsibility for your Beliefs, you have the right to them, but just not to impose them through Govt against the will and beliefs of the next person who has equal right to defend their beliefs as you do.

B. In general, I would interpret "right of the PEOPLE" to keep and bear arms to mean
LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. So this way, it refers to people who are defending the law/Constitution
and only using arms for DEFENSE according to due process and all the same protocol that police follow.

By interpreting the right to bear arms as Enforcing Constitutional law and order,
then it doesn't matter if you interpret Govt militias/military officers to be the people bearing arms or
the citizens, these people are all enforcing the Constitution anyway.

The point I would emphasize is the right and responsibility for arms is within the Spirit of Constitutional laws,
and does NOT have anything to do with freedom to commit crimes or abuses.

If we require Officers to take training and a Constitutional Oath before granting authority to bear arms
for enforcing laws, then why not offer this to ALL citizens so there is a uniform policy, training and oath
for bearing arms in keeping with the same? Why not train ALL citizens in the same policies and protocol
that Police use for apprehension to stop a crime in process, and to comply with due process and all other functions of law enforcement.

If this is led and agreed to among the People or citizens of each district to uphold their own policies with their own local govt and police, then it isn't the Govt dictating regulations but the People deciding how to enforce the laws themselves.

The Conservatives tend to emphasize this freedom reserved to the PEOPLE as in individual citizens in the private sector.

The Liberals tend to emphasize the will of the PEOPLE as established by Govt collectively, especially federal govt.

If we agree on a policy FIRST, then both groups can express and implement the SAME policy in their separate ways they relate to; without imposing their ways on the other group and their traditions and language/terms.

it is still the same concept: that CITIZENS and PEOPLE reserve the right to bear arms to defend the law.
And one group identifies People with the Govt, while the other group relates to People as the private citizens.

We would still benefit from training ALL Citizens/People to uphold the same laws,
whether officially inside Govt or outside as a private individual or group.

 

[Freewill]

What harm is there in me owning a Thomas Sub machine gun? Or even a tank?

 

[NeoTemplar]

I submit this image

 

[emilynghiem]

OHHH, I can own my own tank!

oh 2nd amendment,if I was a multi-billionaire, I would take over a nation. Like Zimbabwe.

The same "Natural Laws" that empower you to create your own govt
would stop you if you became too abusive with these powers to try to oppress others.

If you coerce or bully others, to cause a disruption of peace and order,
then by the same "natural laws," you would find yourself being petitioned for a redress of grievances.

You might receive a formal denunciation like King George for all his wrongs.
Or find 95 Theses posted on your front door by a very disgruntled Martin Luther.

Instead of using tanks to take over Zimbabwe,
you'd might do better to set up a viral spam generator that helps you collect money as a Nigerian Banker.
Or that deal where you email strangers to send money to help a friend stuck in Europe without their wallet.

A tank is too traceable. You would need to go stealth, so nobody can hold you to account.
Otherwise, by freedom of speech, or of the press, and the right of the people to petition,
whatever grievances you cause will come back to you, and voice themselves until they are heard and resolved.

This is the natural law that governs all people as socially connected beings who affect collective
peace and justice in society. You have rights and freedoms, but if you abuse them, you lose them.

 

[emilynghiem]

What harm is there in me owning a Thomas Sub machine gun? Or even a tank?

It's not an issue for public concern except when a lot of people organize guns and tanks collectively.
With one individual who cares. But if you are talking about organizing arms, then people start to care.

 

[Freewill]

What harm is there in me owning a Thomas Sub machine gun? Or even a tank?

It's not an issue for public concern except when a lot of people organize guns and tanks collectively.
With one individual who cares. But if you are talking about organizing arms, then people start to care.

What? Who are you talking about? Who exactly are your worried about? You worried about militias?