Why the 2nd Amendment needs to be reconsidered...

[DiamondDave]

Not that I think it was about anything but Militias, but let's pretend we are in National Rampage Association crazy land...

This is a Revolutionary War Era Musket. It could fire 2-3 rounds a minute in the hands of a trained infantryman. Accurate to only about 100 yards.

This is a AR-15 Bushmaster.

It can fire 45 Rounds per minute, and has a maximum effective range of 450 meters.

Now, before one of you mutants gets on here and tells me, "Well, the First Amendment never considered Television", you are right.

And we don't treat Television like the printed press. There are restrictions on what you can broadcast, when you can broadcast, and who can broadcast. More to the point, the Television industry largely self-regulates. they don't put commercials for Trojan condoms on The Hub kiddie network.

But the citizenry DID have the same level of personal firearm as the military in many many cases.. which was more advanced than it was 100 or 200 years before that... they did know things advance, they were not stupid

That's mainly because they were the military.

Really.. they did not sign up??

Our current soldiers are not also part of the citizenry??

 

[Avatar4321]

Because you have outsourced your responsibilities to the government to such a degree that you are afraid to exercise your right and responsibility to self defense. Rather than empower individuals, you'd prefer an empowered government.

I disagree with you.

 

[DiamondDave]

The Constitution does not nor did it ever advocate for the violent overthrow of the government.

In fact..it does the opposite.

No, the Declaration of Independence did that.

And the Declaration of Independence is a one shot deal.

No legislation is derived from it nor is it a template for governance.

And it describes the secession of ties with a government that was overseas. Not domestic.

yet it showed that you do sometimes have to deal with a tyrannical government and remove its chains from you

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution does not nor did it ever advocate for the violent overthrow of the government.

In fact..it does the opposite.

No, the Declaration of Independence did that.

And the Declaration of Independence is a one shot deal.

No legislation is derived from it nor is it a template for governance.

And it describes the secession of ties with a government that was overseas. Not domestic.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Notice the term "any"

 

[Inthemiddle]

What????

You and I agree, Muddle????


A sure sign of the apocalypse!!!

I keep telling you all, I'm not a liberal.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Where's Waldo.....err I mean Joe?

 

[Ernie S.]

Not sure what that had to do with anything I said, but okay, please go there.

Incidently, the government DID make allowances for airplanes as part of the armed forces. They created the Air Force as a separate branch of the military and combined the Navy and War Departments into a unified "Department of Defense"....

In short they ADAPTED to the technology.

MOre to the point, if you use the logic of the National Rampage Association, private citizens should be able to have armed fighter craft... but I think the FAA would want to have a word with you if you tried that.

And the 2nd amendment adapted to technology as well.
In the late 18th century, out forefathers forsaw the possibility that citizens might have to defend themselves from a government armed with these:

230 years later, citizens need to be armed in the eventuality that they have to defend against a government armed with these:

Sorry Joe. You lose again.

You did much better ranting against Mormons than firearms. Either go back to that or find a new shtick. Maybe Jews?

The Constitution does not nor did it ever advocate for the violent overthrow of the government.

In fact..it does the opposite.

It's framers talked often about the possible need.
After all, when they wrote thew Constitution, it was just 4 years since they had succeeded in overthrowing the previous oppressive government. They were publicly optimistic, but privately wary.

It does not do the opposite. It purposefully limited the power and scope of the federal government to keep it from becoming powerful enough that the People would be forced to revolt yet again.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Maybe the president shouldn't control the air force since there were no planes in 1776.

Not sure what that had to do with anything I said, but okay, please go there.

Incidently, the government DID make allowances for airplanes as part of the armed forces. They created the Air Force as a separate branch of the military and combined the Navy and War Departments into a unified "Department of Defense"....

In short they ADAPTED to the technology.

MOre to the point, if you use the logic of the National Rampage Association, private citizens should be able to have armed fighter craft... but I think the FAA would want to have a word with you if you tried that.

So you big gov't. socialists like it when gov't. adapts and adopts weapons of today, but hate it when the constitution actually protects our rights to bear arms while adjusting to weapons of today? Idiots.

 

[daveman]

The Constitution does not nor did it ever advocate for the violent overthrow of the government.

In fact..it does the opposite.

No, the Declaration of Independence did that.

And the Declaration of Independence is a one shot deal.

No legislation is derived from it nor is it a template for governance.

And it describes the secession of ties with a government that was overseas. Not domestic.

The location of the government in question is immaterial. The fact that it was oppressive and non-representative is.

 

[AmericanFirst]

And the 2nd amendment adapted to technology as well.
In the late 18th century, out forefathers forsaw the possibility that citizens might have to defend themselves from a government armed with these:

230 years later, citizens need to be armed in the eventuality that they have to defend against a government armed with these:

Sorry Joe. You lose again.

You did much better ranting against Mormons than firearms. Either go back to that or find a new shtick. Maybe Jews?

The Constitution does not nor did it ever advocate for the violent overthrow of the government.

In fact..it does the opposite.

It's framers talked often about the possible need.
After all, when they wrote thew Constitution, it was just 4 years since they had succeeded in overthrowing the previous oppressive government. They were publicly optimistic, but privately wary.

It does not do the opposite. It purposefully limited the power and scope of the federal government to keep it from becoming powerful enough that the People would be forced to revolt yet again.

Liberals refuse to believe that the Constitution says what it says. They twist it to serve their socialistic ideas.

 

[Avatar4321]

Liberals refuse to believe that the Constitution says what it says. They twist it to serve their socialistic ideas.

I wish it was only a liberal problem. but it seems to be an American problem to not belief the Constitution. Heck, it's an American problem that people are completely ignorant of it.

 

[eflatminor]

This is a Revolutionary War Era Musket. It could fire 2-3 rounds a minute in the hands of a trained infantryman. Accurate to only about 100 yards.

This is a AR-15 Bushmaster. It can fire 45 Rounds per minute, and has a maximum effective range of 450 meters.

So, what you're saying is the 2nd amendment, when written, ensured that the people had the exact same arms as the military. By golly, you're right! That Bushmaster, on the other hand, is semi auto only. The military has actual assault rifles with full auto/burst capability. By your own reasoning, fully automatic firearms should not be restricted to the people. Fine with me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Pity there can’t be an informative, civil, reasonable, exchange about gun control, here or in any other venue.

Like all other political issues, gun violence and regulation is relegated to two deaf extremes shouting at each other.

Reason is often much more convincing than rage.

This thread might have provoked a thoughtful discourse with regard to the efficacy of banning ‘high capacity’ magazines.

For example, how many could a determined criminal kill with an unmodified, US market Saiga .223 featuring a ten-round detachable magazine? How long would it take such a criminal to swap-out a spent magazine with a fresh one? Would this require a ‘skill level’ greater than that of the ‘average criminal’? Would this serve as a sufficient deterrent, since the Saiga .223 won’t likely be subject to a new AWB? Should semi-auto rifles be regulated based on their average rate of fire rather than their magazines’ capacity?

Or would all semi-auto rifles need to be banned altogether?

Among the more frustrating aspects of the ‘gun debate’ is the absent of facts and information.

 

[eflatminor]

Among the more frustrating aspects of the ‘gun debate’ is the absent of facts and information.

As well as logic and reason.

You want to talk about bans on certain types of firearms or their accessories. Okay. Please tell us how these bans would avoid the predictable consequence of putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals who really could care less about your regulations?

Stated differently, what makes you think bad guys would be prevented or even deterred from obtaining these banned items, thereby giving them an advantage against the good guys? Why would you want to give criminals an edge? I find that approach insane.

Personally, I'm happy to support stiffer sentences for criminals that use a firearm in the commission of their crimes. Fine. But I cannot support new regulations that restrict our ability to defend ourselves against these assholes.

 

[Missourian]

Not that I think it was about anything but Militias, but let's pretend we are in National Rampage Association crazy land...

This is a Revolutionary War Era Musket. It could fire 2-3 rounds a minute in the hands of a trained infantryman. Accurate to only about 100 yards.

This is a AR-15 Bushmaster.

It can fire 45 Rounds per minute, and has a maximum effective range of 450 meters.

Now, before one of you mutants gets on here and tells me, "Well, the First Amendment never considered Television", you are right.

And we don't treat Television like the printed press. There are restrictions on what you can broadcast, when you can broadcast, and who can broadcast. More to the point, the Television industry largely self-regulates. they don't put commercials for Trojan condoms on The Hub kiddie network.

So sorry, you may only express your political viewpoint by hand written letter or in person.

The internet wasn't around in 1789.

When the Pony Expressman delivers it, I will be happy to mail you a reply.

 

[Locke11_21]

Not that I think it was about anything but Militias, but let's pretend we are in National Rampage Association crazy land...

This is a Revolutionary War Era Musket. It could fire 2-3 rounds a minute in the hands of a trained infantryman. Accurate to only about 100 yards.

This is a AR-15 Bushmaster.

It can fire 45 Rounds per minute, and has a maximum effective range of 450 meters.

Now, before one of you mutants gets on here and tells me, "Well, the First Amendment never considered Television", you are right.

And we don't treat Television like the printed press. There are restrictions on what you can broadcast, when you can broadcast, and who can broadcast. More to the point, the Television industry largely self-regulates. they don't put commercials for Trojan condoms on The Hub kiddie network.

During the times of when our Founding Fathers were writing our Constitution, the musket that fires a single shot, and can fire 2 to 3 rounds in a minute with an effective range of 100 yards was the most advanced weapon of the time. At this point in time, we do not have lightsaber, nor do we have blasters, but the highly intelligent George Lucas has the imagination to come up with these weapons. We don't have the technology to manufacture them now, but at some point in the future the capability will be there. So, given the high intelligence of our Founders, I am sure they envisioned the day when there would be weapons that could fire alotta bullets at a very fast rate.

With that in mind, if our Founding Fathers dind't want Americans to have the best weapons available at that time, they would have written the 2nd Amendment to only protect the right own bows, swords and knives - not "muskets". If the Founders didn't want Americans in the future to own the best weapons, they never would have written this amendment to guarentee this right to future generations.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not that I think it was about anything but Militias, but let's pretend we are in National Rampage Association crazy land...

This is a Revolutionary War Era Musket. It could fire 2-3 rounds a minute in the hands of a trained infantryman. Accurate to only about 100 yards.

This is a AR-15 Bushmaster.

It can fire 45 Rounds per minute, and has a maximum effective range of 450 meters.

Now, before one of you mutants gets on here and tells me, "Well, the First Amendment never considered Television", you are right.

And we don't treat Television like the printed press. There are restrictions on what you can broadcast, when you can broadcast, and who can broadcast. More to the point, the Television industry largely self-regulates. they don't put commercials for Trojan condoms on The Hub kiddie network.

It is simple you want to change the 2nd? Make a new Amendment. You know follow the Constitution.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

It is simple you want to change the 2nd? Make a new Amendment. You know follow the Constitution.

This is my opinion too. If you want to have the debate, and I think it's a worthwhile debate to have, then it has to be done via amendment. That is the Constitutional process for updating out of date or erroneous sections of the Constitution. Passing a law won't help you as the 2nd is quite clear on what you can and can not do when it comes to gun ownership rights.

I'm pro gun despite not owning one myself (I'm an accident prone klutz with bad eyesight). But I do think the idea that a militia of citizens with even automatic assault rifles could overthrow the modern military is kinda laughable. A military willing to support an oppressive federal government bad enough to need overthrow is going to just airstrike and drone strike resistance to hell without losing any sleep. I hate to say it, but if you're really scared about the Feds, you would need tactics that are fairly distasteful to the average citizen if you wanted a serious chance at winning, and it wouldn't involve assault rifles.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not that I think it was about anything but Militias, but let's pretend we are in National Rampage Association crazy land...

This is a Revolutionary War Era Musket. It could fire 2-3 rounds a minute in the hands of a trained infantryman. Accurate to only about 100 yards.

This is a AR-15 Bushmaster.

It can fire 45 Rounds per minute, and has a maximum effective range of 450 meters.

Now, before one of you mutants gets on here and tells me, "Well, the First Amendment never considered Television", you are right.

And we don't treat Television like the printed press. There are restrictions on what you can broadcast, when you can broadcast, and who can broadcast. More to the point, the Television industry largely self-regulates. they don't put commercials for Trojan condoms on The Hub kiddie network.

Yep everybody back then had the same type of firearm including miltiary and the county sheriff. they all had military style riles.

 

[earlycuyler]

Not that I think it was about anything but Militias, but let's pretend we are in National Rampage Association crazy land...

This is a Revolutionary War Era Musket. It could fire 2-3 rounds a minute in the hands of a trained infantryman. Accurate to only about 100 yards.

This is a AR-15 Bushmaster.

It can fire 45 Rounds per minute, and has a maximum effective range of 450 meters.

Now, before one of you mutants gets on here and tells me, "Well, the First Amendment never considered Television", you are right.

And we don't treat Television like the printed press. There are restrictions on what you can broadcast, when you can broadcast, and who can broadcast. More to the point, the Television industry largely self-regulates. they don't put commercials for Trojan condoms on The Hub kiddie network.

But they do on cartoon network. The sale of fire arms are regulated. As I pointed out before, Mass shootings happen, and have been happening since the early 80's. This is in countries where fire arms are all but banned when it comes to civilian ownership.

List of rampage killers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mass shootings are not unique to third world countries or the USA. Fire arms are not the problem. Broken people are.