Reason for Right to Bear Arms

[CrotchetyGeezer]

The intent of arming citizens as retaining the ability to fight tyranny was that citizens should be able to have whatever weapons the government had.

And of course, that was back in the days of single-shot muskets.

Forget it, no matter how much you beg and plead, you are not going to get nuclear or biological weapons restrictions lifted. You are not going to make it legal to carry hand grenades.

The American people are now demanding government further restricts military style weapons.

You know, I spent part of my childhood with my Uncle Bill and Aunt Sandy after my mother died.

During that time, I didn't know what store bought meat was, because we all hunted, raised chickens and slaughtered a cow every year.

Bill had probably 40 guns in his house, either hanging in racks on the walls, or put away in drawers or other places.

NONE of them were assault rifles, all were bolt action. Why do you need a semi automatic assault rifle to hunt or defend your home with?

The quick answer is, you don't.

So that's what you think...huh? That, that's the reason why the Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment in the Constitution for? To hunt or defend one's self from burglars?

 

[sfcalifornia]

The American people are now demanding government further restricts military style weapons.

Not trying for a 'gotcha' here, I'd really like to know your thoughts. So, please, tell us exactly WHAT firearm characteristics should constitute a banned "military style weapon" and more importantly, WHY you think the restriction of those characteristics will have any impact whatsoever on crazy people and criminals that use a firearm in the course their crimes.

In general, the AWB defined any firearm with a detachable magazine and at least two of certain other characteristics as an assault weapon.

For rifles, those characteristics included:

Telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Grenade launcher
Flash suppressor

For shotguns:

Telescoping stock
Pistol grip
A capacity to hold more than five rounds


For handguns:

Threaded barrels made to attach a barrel extender, handgrip or flash suppressor
A barrel shroud that can be used as a handhold
Weight of at least 50 oz. when unloaded


Nineteen models of firearms were specifically named in the legislation as assault weapons, while other models were included under the umbrella of the law’s definition of assault weapons.
Assault Weapons - The Classification, Definitions and Laws Regarding Assault Weapons

Don't know if another AWB will have any effect or not other than being a feel good measure but it's better than doing nothing. Every little bit counts.

America has to adopt conscription like they have in many other countries if it has any hope in curbing it's gun problem. If anything, just to weed out the loonies.....

 

[9thIDdoc]

Don't know if another AWB will have any effect or not other than being a feel good measure but it's better than doing nothing. Every little bit counts.

Wrong. Limiting freedoms for laws already proven ineffective and likely unconstitutional is stupid.

 

[PratchettFan]

Nice quote!!!!

And, it made perfect sense - then. While it continues to be true in principle, the reality of it is nonsensical.

If every man, woman and child in the US (and in some states, fetuses ... ) owned 10 military assault rifles and endless ammo for their high capacity clips, they would not even be a gnat on the butt of the US military.

I wonder why some people don't seem to understand that.

An excellent point. It is all very nice to find little snippets (inaccurate in this case) from the Founding Fathers. But the truth is that they are dead and we are dealing with the now. This is not the 18th century. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, et al had the issues of their day, took responsibility and created a nation. We now have the responsibility of moving that nation forward. We do so in an environment massively changed from the 18th century.

This is our country now, not Washington's. If the majority don't wish people to own certain types of weapons, then they will be banned. That is how it works. If it is the will of the people to have a complete ban, then they will pass another amendment to repeal the 2nd. If not, then we will continue with status quo.

However, regardless of what happens with weapons it will make no difference in the latest tradegy. Weapons are not creating that problem. Neither are movies or video games. What is creating the problem is that there are now more than 300 million of us crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. As the population rises and the stress of overcrowding increases, the number of these incidents will rise. Weapon bans won't change that, only make it minimally more inconvenient.

 

[SniperFire]

Nice quote!!!!

And, it made perfect sense - then. While it continues to be true in principle, the reality of it is nonsensical.

If every man, woman and child in the US (and in some states, fetuses ... ) owned 10 military assault rifles and endless ammo for their high capacity clips, they would not even be a gnat on the butt of the US military.

I wonder why some people don't seem to understand that.

An excellent point. It is all very nice to find little snippets (inaccurate in this case) from the Founding Fathers. But the truth is that they are dead and we are dealing with the now. This is not the 18th century. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, et al had the issues of their day, took responsibility and created a nation. We now have the responsibility of moving that nation forward. We do so in an environment massively changed from the 18th century.

This is our country now, not Washington's. If the majority don't wish people to own certain types of weapons, then they will be banned. That is how it works. If it is the will of the people to have a complete ban, then they will pass another amendment to repeal the 2nd. If not, then we will continue with status quo.

However, regardless of what happens with weapons it will make no difference in the latest tradegy. Weapons are not creating that problem. Neither are movies or video games. What is creating the problem is that there are now more than 300 million of us crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. As the population rises and the stress of overcrowding increases, the number of these incidents will rise. Weapon bans won't change that, only make it minimally more inconvenient.

No moron, that is not how it works.

Read up on what it takes to ratify a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[PratchettFan]

And, it made perfect sense - then. While it continues to be true in principle, the reality of it is nonsensical.

If every man, woman and child in the US (and in some states, fetuses ... ) owned 10 military assault rifles and endless ammo for their high capacity clips, they would not even be a gnat on the butt of the US military.

I wonder why some people don't seem to understand that.

An excellent point. It is all very nice to find little snippets (inaccurate in this case) from the Founding Fathers. But the truth is that they are dead and we are dealing with the now. This is not the 18th century. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, et al had the issues of their day, took responsibility and created a nation. We now have the responsibility of moving that nation forward. We do so in an environment massively changed from the 18th century.

This is our country now, not Washington's. If the majority don't wish people to own certain types of weapons, then they will be banned. That is how it works. If it is the will of the people to have a complete ban, then they will pass another amendment to repeal the 2nd. If not, then we will continue with status quo.

However, regardless of what happens with weapons it will make no difference in the latest tradegy. Weapons are not creating that problem. Neither are movies or video games. What is creating the problem is that there are now more than 300 million of us crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. As the population rises and the stress of overcrowding increases, the number of these incidents will rise. Weapon bans won't change that, only make it minimally more inconvenient.

No moron, that is not how it works.

Read up on what it takes to ratify a Constitutional Amendment.

Still having trouble reading what is written, I see. Is it ADS? They do have medication for that now. You might want to consult with your physician.

 

[SniperFire]

An excellent point. It is all very nice to find little snippets (inaccurate in this case) from the Founding Fathers. But the truth is that they are dead and we are dealing with the now. This is not the 18th century. Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, et al had the issues of their day, took responsibility and created a nation. We now have the responsibility of moving that nation forward. We do so in an environment massively changed from the 18th century.

This is our country now, not Washington's. If the majority don't wish people to own certain types of weapons, then they will be banned. That is how it works. If it is the will of the people to have a complete ban, then they will pass another amendment to repeal the 2nd. If not, then we will continue with status quo.

However, regardless of what happens with weapons it will make no difference in the latest tradegy. Weapons are not creating that problem. Neither are movies or video games. What is creating the problem is that there are now more than 300 million of us crammed into smaller and smaller spaces. As the population rises and the stress of overcrowding increases, the number of these incidents will rise. Weapon bans won't change that, only make it minimally more inconvenient.

No moron, that is not how it works.

Read up on what it takes to ratify a Constitutional Amendment.

Still having trouble reading what is written, I see. Is it ADS? They do have medication for that now. You might want to consult with your physician.

Changing the Constitution require more than a mob rule majority vote.

You should really read up on such things if you are going to comment on them.

Else, you come off as a complete ass.

 

[PratchettFan]

No moron, that is not how it works.

Read up on what it takes to ratify a Constitutional Amendment.

Still having trouble reading what is written, I see. Is it ADS? They do have medication for that now. You might want to consult with your physician.

Changing the Constitution require more than a mob rule majority vote.

You should really read up on such things if you are going to comment on them.

Else, you come off as a complete ass.

Really, medication might help.

 

[rightwinger]

Our founding fathers did not see the need for a standing Army. For the most part, we did not have one until WWII. There was no draft at the time. If you were able bodied you were expected to support the local militia. Given the poverty of the country at the time, militia members were expected to provide their own arms

 

[eflatminor]

Don't know if another AWB will have any effect or not other than being a feel good measure but it's better than doing nothing.

Well, we KNOW the previous ban did squat. Not a damn thing. The criminals and crazies will still get whatever firearm they like. How is putting law abiding citizens at a tactical disadvantage "better than doing nothing"? How does that help anyone to feel good?

 

[SniperFire]

Don't know if another AWB will have any effect or not other than being a feel good measure but it's better than doing nothing.

Well, we KNOW the previous ban did squat. Not a damn thing. The criminals and crazies will still get whatever firearm they like. How is putting law abiding citizens at a tactical disadvantage "better than doing nothing"? How does that help anyone to feel good?

Please. You are using common sense.

To understand Liberals, you just need to go with your feeeeeeeeellings...

 

[Katzndogz]

The left really believes in mob rule. The majority rules. If the majority wants to legalize robbery as a valid exercise in distribution of wealth it will be illegal to refuse the demands of the attacker. That's how mob rule works. The one main criteria for mob rule is that it is unreasoned and emotional. The mob does not think. If it feels good to be able to take what you want when you want it, the mob will support it. There is no reason behind mob rule. They do what they do because it feels better than any alternative.

This was examined over a 100 years ago by Gustave Le Bon. People haven't changed since then and may never change.

Le Bon believed that modern life was increasingly characterized by crowd assemblages. In La psychologie des foules (1895; The Crowd), his most popular work, he argued that the conscious personality of the individual in a crowd is submerged and that the collective crowd mind dominates; crowd behaviour is unanimous, emotional, and intellectually weak.

Gustave Le Bon (French psychologist) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Liberty is the means to oppose the mob.

 

[eflatminor]

Don't know if another AWB will have any effect or not other than being a feel good measure but it's better than doing nothing.

Well, we KNOW the previous ban did squat. Not a damn thing. The criminals and crazies will still get whatever firearm they like. How is putting law abiding citizens at a tactical disadvantage "better than doing nothing"? How does that help anyone to feel good?

Please. You are using common sense.

To understand Liberals, you just need to go with your feeeeeeeeellings...

Seriously! For days know, I've been looking a shred of logic or reason in their calls to ban this or ban that. It's not to be found. Why anyone would want to give the bad guys an edge over law abiding citizens is beyond me. I've heard of a 'victim mentality' but this is ridiculous.

If they wish to remain defenseless, that's their right. To impose their victim mentality on others is unacceptable.

 

[eflatminor]

Liberty is the means to oppose the mob.

 

[007]

Who told you this?

Do you honestly believe, that over 200 years ago, the founding fathers intended for you to own every single gun you ever wanted?

Yes. They did NOT have your irrational fear of guns.

She has to say moronic, liberal garbage like that because they were all stupid enough to let their government confiscate all their firearms already. Now they have higher crime rates and no one can defend themselves against it.

We don't need their kind of sheeple, put yourself at the mercy of your government kind of crap here in America. Keep it to yourself.

 

[007]

Looks like not all Australians are as stupid as NOOOOOOOOmie.....


Australia Warns America: Don’t Let Them Take Your Guns!

Read more: Australia Warns America: Don’t Let Them Take Your Guns!

 

[007]

BRITISH WANT THEIR GUNS BACK...​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKdBxpKqUvs]British Want Their Guns Back - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Katzndogz]

Why do liberals want a dominant criminal culture? They have to want it or they would not be working so hard to make the country safe for criminals. That's the real question.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nonsense. You will not get a military weapons platform.

The intent of arming citizens as retaining the ability to fight tyranny was that citizens should be able to have whatever weapons the government had.

And of course, that was back in the days of single-shot muskets.

Forget it, no matter how much you beg and plead, you are not going to get nuclear or biological weapons restrictions lifted. You are not going to make it legal to carry hand grenades.

The American people are now demanding government further restricts military style weapons.

Military style weapons? What's "military style weapons"? Oh...wait, you don't know those in the military carry regular pistols, knives and other similar weapons? I have an old bayonet which came from my dad's Army gun he used in World War II. Is that a "military style weapon"?

 

[tjvh]

They didn't intend Americans to own every kind of gun imaginable, that is for sure.

Did your magic 8 ball tell you that after you shook it?