we are not evil for defending the 2nd amendment

[JustTheFacts]

A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY TO THINK ABOUT.......December 29, 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry's death squad, were deemed “National Heroes” and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of [cowardice] heroism.

We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized “Official Government Explanation”. And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre, which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted, “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on “target shooting”. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.

As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection”. The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety”. Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of “our safety”.

Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute-
Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate “evil” into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, and the criminal element will always find a way around it.

Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? In the hands of those with the power, the governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do the governments always target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders…but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”. Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families.

All of that is ASSUMING that the US Army would ever participate in attacking US citizens, it will not.

Not ever.

And that choice would only have to be made if a POTUS ever ordered them to, and none ever will, not ever.

 

[Wiseacre]

The 2nd amendment is not going to be repealed in this country. Period. But there are legitimate issues over the types of weapons and clip capacities that a citizen needs to defend himself, his home, and his family. It's hard to understand why a person needs to be able to fire hundreds of rounds within a few minutes; it's hard to understand why an honest lawabiding citizen would have aproblem waiting for a week or two to obtain a weapon with that capability, why should society not at least try to preclude criminals and the mentally ill from legally gaining access?

The argument that if we do pass legislation that tightens gun control laws will mean eventually every American will lose his/her 2nd amendment rights is bogus. That's never going to happen, not a chance in hell. It's one thing to say you can't have a weapon that fires hundreds of rounds, or that you gotta wait awhile to make sure there are no red flags in your background to indicate you might be a threat. It's another to say we're talking every gun you have. Don't be telling me one leads to the other, I ain't buying that.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The 2nd amendment is not going to be repealed in this country. Period. But there are legitimate issues over the types of weapons and clip capacities that a citizen needs to defend himself, his home, and his family. It's hard to understand why a person needs to be able to fire hundreds of rounds within a few minutes; it's hard to understand why an honest lawabiding citizen would have aproblem waiting for a week or two to obtain a weapon with that capability, why should society not at least try to preclude criminals and the mentally ill from legally gaining access?

The argument that if we do pass legislation that tightens gun control laws will mean eventually every American will lose his/her 2nd amendment rights is bogus. That's never going to happen, not a chance in hell. It's one thing to say you can't have a weapon that fires hundreds of rounds, or that you gotta wait awhile to make sure there are no red flags in your background to indicate you might be a threat. It's another to say we're talking every gun you have. Don't be telling me one leads to the other, I ain't buying that.

What does how many rounds my gun will fire a minute have to do with how many people it is killing ? I have an M16A1 that is capable of firing 650 rounds per minute. Remarkably enough , I have killed the same exact number of people with it as I have with an old .54 caliber muzzle loader that I can fire about 1 round every 3 minutes with. That number would be zero.

 

[Ringel05]

The 2nd amendment is not going to be repealed in this country. Period. But there are legitimate issues over the types of weapons and clip capacities that a citizen needs to defend himself, his home, and his family. It's hard to understand why a person needs to be able to fire hundreds of rounds within a few minutes; it's hard to understand why an honest lawabiding citizen would have aproblem waiting for a week or two to obtain a weapon with that capability, why should society not at least try to preclude criminals and the mentally ill from legally gaining access?

The argument that if we do pass legislation that tightens gun control laws will mean eventually every American will lose his/her 2nd amendment rights is bogus. That's never going to happen, not a chance in hell. It's one thing to say you can't have a weapon that fires hundreds of rounds, or that you gotta wait awhile to make sure there are no red flags in your background to indicate you might be a threat. It's another to say we're talking every gun you have. Don't be telling me one leads to the other, I ain't buying that.

While I wholeheartedly agree that background checks include the denial of ownership for certain forms of mental illness I also realize that waiting periods have been proven ineffective, rendering them useless. I also realize the reality that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of so called assault rifles and high capacity magazines are already in circulation and that a ban will have little or no affect except to allow some politicians and their backers to say, "see we did something about this".

 

[Billo_Really]

the NY gov is talking about confiscation !!and the left will say anything to achieve there goals .

If this is a "trash the left" thread, then it's in the wrong forum.

Comments like that, don't belong in an intelligent debate.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If I were King for a day in the current climate I would remove the 2nd Amendment. And understand that I own and love guns. But we have some fucked up people in America who have no business having a gun, and as long as the majority of gun owners stand in the way of addressing THAT issue, you're going to wind up losing your own rights.

You would remove the 2nd amendment, (of course you have and love guns...wink), because of the actions of the criminally insane who willfully used the inanimate object to take life illegally.

But have no mention or intention of ever addressing the criminal.

We have rich history of gun ownership in this nation. What has changed is people are not held accountable for thier actions and our court / penal system has been watered down to where it is a joke.

Commit a gun crime of force go to jail and hard labor for LIFE.

Kill someone....you are executed.

Swift and certain with all due process.

 

[JustTheFacts]

If I were King for a day in the current climate I would remove the 2nd Amendment. And understand that I own and love guns. But we have some fucked up people in America who have no business having a gun, and as long as the majority of gun owners stand in the way of addressing THAT issue, you're going to wind up losing your own rights.

You would remove the 2nd amendment, (of course you have and love guns...wink), because of the actions of the criminally insane who willfully used the inanimate object to take life illegally.

But have no mention or intention of ever addressing the criminal.

We have rich history of gun ownership in this nation. What has changed is people are not held accountable for thier actions and our court / penal system has been watered down to where it is a joke.

Commit a gun crime of force go to jail and hard labor for LIFE.

Kill someone....you are executed.

Swift and certain with all due process.

Absolutely I would remove it as a right. That does not mean I would make gun ownership illegal. Why are you stuck in that constraint?

I also of course said NOTHING about not going after criminals.

But let me ask YOU something. What good is telling a person who kills 26 people then commits suicide that we are now going to start enforcing the death penalty? They don't care, they are killing themselves.

And yes, I own guns, lots and lots of guns, no doubt more than you or most people you know. I don't know how my collection got so big , but it did, and I believe that Americans should be able to own any gun they want, including fully automatic weapons, but I do NOT believe it should be a right that can't be taken away on a case by case basis.

But you keep on fighting for the rights of the collective bruh.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would like to hear a serious debate without name calling and cheap shots .

You won't.

When they run out of talking points and are faced with the reality that they cannot show any of their arguments to be sound, the anti-gun side either runs from the discussion or tosses out the ad homs.

Every time.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I would like to hear a serious debate without name calling and cheap shots .

You won't.

When they run out of talking points and are faced with the reality that they cannot show any of their arguments to be sound, the anti-gun side either runs from the discussion or tosses out the ad homs.

Every time.

Didn't you essentially do the same?

It is on both sides dude, one side can't pretend to take the moral high ground and pretend like all the nastiness and vitriol is coming from one camp. It isn't.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one is going after the 2nd Amendment. All this hysteria over a mythical issue, is just a distraction from the real problems we need to be addressing. There's nothing wrong with having background checks for people buying guns or laws limiting high-volume clips and assault weapons.

Can you show that any of these would have stopped the Newtown shooting?
Can you show that any of these will stop another?
Can you show that any of these do not violate the Constitution?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Maybe not, but maybe we should consider making it tougher for some nutcase to get his/her hands on an AR-15.

What would you suggest?
How woudl your suggestion have stopped the Newtown shooting?
If he had to use a 12g pump shotgun instead, how would have the result been any different?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd amendment is not going to be repealed in this country. Period. But there are legitimate issues over the types of weapons and clip capacities that a citizen needs to defend himself, his home, and his family. It's hard to understand why a person needs to be able to fire hundreds of rounds within a few minutes;

Because the right to arms exists for more than just self-defense of the home.

it's hard to understand why an honest lawabiding citizen would have aproblem waiting for a week or two to obtain a weapon with that capability

A right delayed is a right denied - regardless of the right in question.
Delaying the exercise of a right so that the government can make sure you arent doing anything illegal is called prior restraint, which is an infringement.

why should society not at least try to preclude criminals and the mentally ill from legally gaining access?

It's been illegal for felons and thise legally judged as mentally ill to buy/own/posess guns since 1968.

The argument that if we do pass legislation that tightens gun control laws will mean eventually every American will lose his/her 2nd amendment rights is bogus.

"Infringement" cover a lot more than just "losing" the right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would like to hear a serious debate without name calling and cheap shots .

You won't.

When they run out of talking points and are faced with the reality that they cannot show any of their arguments to be sound, the anti-gun side either runs from the discussion or tosses out the ad homs.

Every time.

Didn't you essentially do the same?

Nope. I did not call anyone names, and I did not take a cheap shot.
I -did- describe the result of every gun control topic on this board.

 

[Wiseacre]

No one is going after the 2nd Amendment. All this hysteria over a mythical issue, is just a distraction from the real problems we need to be addressing. There's nothing wrong with having background checks for people buying guns or laws limiting high-volume clips and assault weapons.

Can you show that any of these would have stopped the Newtown shooting?
Can you show that any of these will stop another?
Can you show that any of these do not violate the Constitution?

I cannot imagine any legislation that would have stopped the Newtown shootings, short of confiscation of all firearms. Which as I said is just not going happen. And there's no way to know whether or not any new legislation would prevent another incident; but it might, and that's the point. If there are reasonable steps that we might take that could reduce the chances in the future of another mass slaying, then we oughta think about doing it.

As far as violating the Constitution, I'll let the court decide that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one is going after the 2nd Amendment. All this hysteria over a mythical issue, is just a distraction from the real problems we need to be addressing. There's nothing wrong with having background checks for people buying guns or laws limiting high-volume clips and assault weapons.

Can you show that any of these would have stopped the Newtown shooting?
Can you show that any of these will stop another?
Can you show that any of these do not violate the Constitution?

I cannot imagine any legislation that would have stopped the Newtown shootings, short of confiscation of all firearms.

So, you believe that in terms of solving the problem demonstrated by the Newtown shooting, the suggestions for more gun control, precipitated by that shooting, will be ineffective. Correct?

And there's no way to know whether or not any new legislation would prevent another incident; but it might, and that's the point.

There is. If the suggestions does not address the 'problem', then there's no reason to believe that they will have any effect on a future manifestation of that problem.
Given that, why enact any of them?

As far as violating the Constitution, I'll let the court decide that.

IOW, you cannot say how the restrictions do not violate the constitution.

 

[Wiseacre]

Can you show that any of these would have stopped the Newtown shooting?
Can you show that any of these will stop another?
Can you show that any of these do not violate the Constitution?

I cannot imagine any legislation that would have stopped the Newtown shootings, short of confiscation of all firearms.

So, you believe that in terms of solving the problem demonstrated by the Newtown shooting, the suggestions for more gun control, precipitated by that shooting, will be ineffective. Correct?

Yes. The Newtown shooter had access to mass casualty firearms that were legally obtained by an adult with no criminal record or hint of mental instabilty. I cannot think of any legislation short of confiscation that would have changed anything.

And there's no way to know whether or not any new legislation would prevent another incident; but it might, and that's the point.

There is. If the suggestions does not address the 'problem', then there's no reason to believe that they will have any effect on a future manifestation of that problem.
Given that, why enact any of them?

Your logic fails a little bit here. Just because we cannot prevent that same event from re-occurring does not mean we could not possibly prevent a different event from happening under different circumstances.

As far as violating the Constitution, I'll let the court decide that.

IOW, you cannot say how the restrictions do not violate the constitution.

True, I would not present myself as any kind of expert on the constitutionality of any new legislation. No doubt if any GC laws are passed they will be challenged in the courts, and that's fine by me. In general I am opposed to liberal interpretations that try to change the meaning or intent of the Constitution, but one wonders if citizens really need assault weapons that are intended for warfare, or the ability to inflict mass casualties in one's own home.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I cannot imagine any legislation that would have stopped the Newtown shootings, short of confiscation of all firearms.

So, you believe that in terms of solving the problem demonstrated by the Newtown shooting, the suggestions for more gun control, precipitated by that shooting, will be ineffective. Correct?

Yes. The Newtown shooter had access to mass casualty firearms that were legally obtained by an adult with no criminal record or hint of mental instabilty. I cannot think of any legislation short of confiscation that would have changed anything.

Would you then agree that the gun control proposals bandied about since the shooting have nothing to do with the Newtown shooting, but are simply exploiting that shooting to push a pre-existing agenda?
If not, why not?

There is. If the suggestions does not address the 'problem', then there's no reason to believe that they will have any effect on a future manifestation of that problem.
Given that, why enact any of them?

Your logic fails a little bit here. Just because we cannot prevent that same event from re-occurring does not mean we could not possibly prevent a different event from happening under different circumstances.

My logic is sound; your response does not address the soundness of my statement but instead change the subject from preventing another Newtown shooting to possibly preventing some unrelated crime somewhere else.

And so, the Newtown shooting doesn't weigh into the "solutuions" being proposed, other than an emotional magnet to draw support for a pre-existing agenda - put otherwise, those pushing the current proposals are using the blood of 20 schoolkids to push an agenda that has nothing to do with preventing another such incident.

As far as violating the Constitution, I'll let the court decide that.

IOW, you cannot say how the restrictions do not violate the constitution.

True, I would not present myself as any kind of expert on the constitutionality of any new legislation.

Under our system, when someone wants to restrict a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution, the burden of proof is upon those who wish to lay the restriction to show that the restriction does not violate the constitutuon. Absent the ability to make that argument, you should reconsider your support of the restrictions in question.

The idea that we should pass the restrictions and see what happens in court is unsound, a statememt I suppose you would happily agree with if the subject matter were different.

but one wonders if citizens really need assault weapons that are intended for warfare, or the ability to inflict mass casualties in one's own home.

Current jurispridence shows that these are -exactly- the kinds of weapons protected by the 2nd, as to qualify for the protection of the 2nd, a weapon must be suitable for and effective in the service of the milita, and part of the ordinary military equipment that is in common use at the time.
It is impossible to soundly argue that 'assault weapons' do not fall under this description.

 

[Billo_Really]

Can you show that any of these would have stopped the Newtown shooting?
Can you show that any of these will stop another?

In terms of absolutes, no.

In terms of percentages, yes.

Can you show that any of these do not violate the Constitution?

Yes I can.

"Congress shall make all laws that provide for the general welfare of the country".

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can you show that any of these would have stopped the Newtown shooting?
Can you show that any of these will stop another?

In terms of absolutes, no.
In terms of percentages, yes.

Ok... have at it.

Can you show that any of these do not violate the Constitution?

Yes I can.
"Congress shall make all laws that provide for the general welfare of the country".

1: Where in the Constitution did you find the text that grants this power?
2: If this power exists, it is limited by the 2nd amendment; volating the 2nd Amendment is a violation of the Constitution.
So, again:
Can you show that any of these do not violate the Constitution?

 

[Wiseacre]

Would you then agree that the gun control proposals bandied about since the shooting have nothing to do with the Newtown shooting, but are simply exploiting that shooting to push a pre-existing agenda?
If not, why not?

GC proposals being talked about now have nothing to do with Newtown, that's over with; but that doesn't mean we should not engage in a national conversation about what might be done to reduce the chances of another mass killing in the future by somebody using mass casualty weapons. Is it possible that stricter GC laws might preclude a mentally disturbed person from shooting up another school or another venue? MAYBE. I don't see how anyone can definitively say no, but I also think that no one could definitively say yes either. And BTW, exploiting the Newtown tragedy or the existence of a pre-existing agenda is beside the point.

My logic is sound; your response does not address the soundness of my statement but instead change the subject from preventing another Newtown shooting to possibly preventing some unrelated crime somewhere else.

That's the whole point, to reduce the chances for another mass shooting. I have no idea what you're trying to say here, we can't undo Newtown.

And so, the Newtown shooting doesn't weigh into the "solutuions" being proposed, other than an emotional magnet to draw support for a pre-existing agenda - put otherwise, those pushing the current proposals are using the blood of 20 schoolkids to push an agenda that has nothing to do with preventing another such incident.

I don't give a rat's ass about somebody's agenda, including yours. Can we do anything to lessen the chances of another mass shooting?

The idea that we should pass the restrictions and see what happens in court is unsound, a statement I suppose you would happily agree with if the subject matter were different.

That's what we do, laws are passed on anything and everything, and they sometimes get challenged for their constitutionality. That's the system, and I support it. I do think the SCOTUS has gone too far in some areas in their liberal interpretations, such as the recvent ruling on the ACA. But all of this is beside the point, whatever you or I think about the constitutionality of any new GC law matters not at all.

Current jurispridence shows that these are -exactly- the kinds of weapons protected by the 2nd, as to qualify for the protection of the 2nd, a weapon must be suitable for and effective in the service of the milita, and part of the ordinary military equipment commonly in use at the time. It is impossible to soundly argue that 'assault weapons' do not fall under this description.

I dunno about that, I suspect that most Guard and Reserve units do not issue assault weapons to use in the performance of their duties. Neither does the active duty, when not deployed these weapons are stored in an armory. To suppose that means that every civilian should have access to the same weapons and keep them at home when the military itself cannot is wrong IMHO.