Debate: Constitutional Provision for Gun Ownership is Out of Date with Current Realities

[Manonthestreet]

The constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?

think you are a talking point trooper

 

[martybegan]

The constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?

When the police give up their right to guns, and the government can guarantee no criminal will ever have one, I'll give up mine.

Actually I won't, but good luck making my conditions a reality.

 

[there4eyeM]

Some seem to maintain all 'arms' are 2nd A sacred.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No one wants really big nukes to be available, surely.

I think the likelihood of even an oppressive, fascist US government using nukes against rebellious citizens on their own soil is very remote, since they themselves and their own followers also live there. It would take a very stupid, suicidal person to go that route. So I don't really have a problem with the fact that ownership of the quite rare materials necessary for nukes is very restricted, particularly since the cost of those materials is prohibitively high, anyway.

But leaving aside the "all or nothing" fallacy argument, it is a fact that the Founding generation had the technology of large weapons (cannons, for example) available and in use, and felt no necessity to limit the possession of such. You can argue whether or not they were correct in doing so, but you cannot honestly argue that they wrote the Second Amendment in ignorance of the issue.

And of course it is so easy to carry a cannon into a movie theater, an airport or onto a college campus.

What about the jets, subs, tanks etc?

Well, they are all weapons of war, created to wage war and thus by definition ARMS.

Those concrete thinkers who believe the 2nd A. was meant to allow every man, women and child, citizen or not, the absolute right to own, possess and have in their custody and or control ARMS are not civilized/socialized and/or as dense as a leaded box filled with lead weights.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?

When the police give up their right to guns, and the government can guarantee no criminal will ever have one, I'll give up mine.

Actually I won't, but good luck making my conditions a reality.

I can only speak for the agencies which employed me. To become an armed officer of the law, the applicant is required to pass a written test, pass at least two and most times three oral interviews, take and pass a battery of psychological tests and meet with a psychologist at least two times before offered a conditional offer of employment.

Then a full background investigation will look into the life background of the applicant: Arrest history if any; treatment for Alcohol or other drugs; civil court orders and judgments; found to be a danger to them self or others; Credit history; Residences, reasons for changes of location; education, incl. academic and deportment records; interviews of three persons who provided recommendations and others who might know the applicant (former neighbors, employers, teachers, coaches, etc.).

He/She then must complete POST training in the laws of arrest and firearm training, the latter of which is on going for their entire career. Sign off on a use of force policy and for the first (usually) year continue to be trained by a Field Training Officer (FTO). Not until the probationary employed proves him or her self in the field are they offered permanent employment. At any time before that offer is made, they can be sent home with no right to appeal.

If you Marty wanted to own a gun, and such a background check were required, your written comments on this Message Board would be sufficient and necessary to tell you, Hell No! You would never be allowed the privilege to own, possess or operate a gun of any kind!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?

What makes you think the American military would fire on their own families?

 

[martybegan]

The constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?

When the police give up their right to guns, and the government can guarantee no criminal will ever have one, I'll give up mine.

Actually I won't, but good luck making my conditions a reality.

I can only speak for the agencies which employed me. To become an armed officer of the law, the applicant is required to pass a written test, pass at least two and most times three oral interviews, take and pass a battery of psychological tests and meet with a psychologist at least two times before offered a conditional offer of employment.

Then a full background investigation will look into the life background of the applicant: Arrest history if any; treatment for Alcohol or other drugs; civil court orders and judgments; found to be a danger to them self or others; Credit history; Residences, reasons for changes of location; education, incl. academic and deportment records; interviews of three persons who provided recommendations and others who might know the applicant (former neighbors, employers, teachers, coaches, etc.).

He/She then must complete POST training in the laws of arrest and firearm training, the latter of which is on going for their entire career. Sign off on a use of force policy and for the first (usually) year continue to be trained by a Field Training Officer (FTO). Not until the probationary employed proves him or her self in the field are they offered permanent employment. At any time before that offer is made, they can be sent home with no right to appeal.

If you Marty wanted to own a gun, and such a background check were required, your written comments on this Message Board would be sufficient and necessary to tell you, Hell No! You would never be allowed the privilege to own, possess or operate a gun of any kind!

Government doesn't get to decide that.

Plus how much of that training is for firearms use, and how much is for all the other things law enforcement officers can do? The greatest power police have is the power of arrest without consequence as long as proper procedures are followed.

And your comments on this board would tell us you shouldn't have the right to vote. See how that works?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nice attempt at a spin, sorry, it does not turn.

AAAHHH, Red Flag alert, when ever a liberal dose of left wing spin is upcoming it is always preceded with the accusation that someone else is guilty of it, unfortunately for you I know how to debunk spin, it needs to be parsed, broken down and dissected piece by piece in order to expose its folly...example follows.

1. Gun control does not mean total gun confiscation from the public sector.

TOTAL? hmmmm...it may not, but it is what the left refers to as a good first step in that direction

The argument that is does, or that any form of gun control will lead to such an outcome is a logical fallacy, i.e. a Slippery Slope Argument.

That's why it is done in steps, no one step toward the abolishment of anything can be called that, it is when the final step at gun control is enacted that we arrive at a meaningless amendment, it will exist on paper only. It's like removing a tooth, that does not make you toothless, until they are all removed that is, you will still have a mouth to eat with but no bite.
and the slippery slope cliche you tried to pass off as the problem for those who are defending a 250 year old amendment would mean you believe we have been on that slope for our entire existence...when in reality it is those that trifle with our constitutional rights that put us on a slippery slope.

There may be a few extremists who seek such an outcome, but the vast majority of those who seek some control over who owns, possesses or has in their custody and control a firearm does not seek the outlaw of guns by sober, sane and law abiding citizens for protection;

REALLY???
And which category does this fit into:
Debate: Constitutional Provision for Gun Ownership is Out of Date with Current Realities
this is the one you really need to answer!

You're too biased to understand reality (that's a compliment). How does a nation of 300 million + inhabitants, holding an equal number + or - amount of guns go about confiscating each and every one of them? And given our democracy - something the lunatic fringe chooses to deny - what makes you think, if you ever do,- that The People would not support such an endeavor, and send the Pols who passed such legislation packing in the next election?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?

What makes you think the American military would fire on their own families?

What makes you think families would be armed and and put them and their family into harms way against a superior force? And why do you believe more than a few members of the military, who took the oath to support and defend COTUS, would support armed rebels?

Of course you've never thought this through, you like many on the extreme right operate on emotion, bias and the pretense of manhood. People on the far right extreme talk the talk, but the second they see the Elephant for the first time, they will stop talking and start running.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?

When the police give up their right to guns, and the government can guarantee no criminal will ever have one, I'll give up mine.

Actually I won't, but good luck making my conditions a reality.

I can only speak for the agencies which employed me. To become an armed officer of the law, the applicant is required to pass a written test, pass at least two and most times three oral interviews, take and pass a battery of psychological tests and meet with a psychologist at least two times before offered a conditional offer of employment.

Then a full background investigation will look into the life background of the applicant: Arrest history if any; treatment for Alcohol or other drugs; civil court orders and judgments; found to be a danger to them self or others; Credit history; Residences, reasons for changes of location; education, incl. academic and deportment records; interviews of three persons who provided recommendations and others who might know the applicant (former neighbors, employers, teachers, coaches, etc.).

He/She then must complete POST training in the laws of arrest and firearm training, the latter of which is on going for their entire career. Sign off on a use of force policy and for the first (usually) year continue to be trained by a Field Training Officer (FTO). Not until the probationary employed proves him or her self in the field are they offered permanent employment. At any time before that offer is made, they can be sent home with no right to appeal.

If you Marty wanted to own a gun, and such a background check were required, your written comments on this Message Board would be sufficient and necessary to tell you, Hell No! You would never be allowed the privilege to own, possess or operate a gun of any kind!

Government doesn't get to decide that.

Plus how much of that training is for firearms use, and how much is for all the other things law enforcement officers can do? The greatest power police have is the power of arrest without consequence as long as proper procedures are followed.

And your comments on this board would tell us you shouldn't have the right to vote. See how that works?

Government on all levels has the power to promulgate the law; government includes the Supreme Court, which has ruled (in Heller) that the 2nd A. claim ("shall not be infringed") is bogus, hyperbole and thus not to be believed.

Your comment on voting rights is a non sequitur.

See: PC 832 Arrest and Firearms Course - Commission on POST

And consider, this follows the required Training Academy, see:

Los Medanos College - Law Enforcement Academy

 

[martybegan]

The constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?

When the police give up their right to guns, and the government can guarantee no criminal will ever have one, I'll give up mine.

Actually I won't, but good luck making my conditions a reality.

I can only speak for the agencies which employed me. To become an armed officer of the law, the applicant is required to pass a written test, pass at least two and most times three oral interviews, take and pass a battery of psychological tests and meet with a psychologist at least two times before offered a conditional offer of employment.

Then a full background investigation will look into the life background of the applicant: Arrest history if any; treatment for Alcohol or other drugs; civil court orders and judgments; found to be a danger to them self or others; Credit history; Residences, reasons for changes of location; education, incl. academic and deportment records; interviews of three persons who provided recommendations and others who might know the applicant (former neighbors, employers, teachers, coaches, etc.).

He/She then must complete POST training in the laws of arrest and firearm training, the latter of which is on going for their entire career. Sign off on a use of force policy and for the first (usually) year continue to be trained by a Field Training Officer (FTO). Not until the probationary employed proves him or her self in the field are they offered permanent employment. At any time before that offer is made, they can be sent home with no right to appeal.

If you Marty wanted to own a gun, and such a background check were required, your written comments on this Message Board would be sufficient and necessary to tell you, Hell No! You would never be allowed the privilege to own, possess or operate a gun of any kind!

Government doesn't get to decide that.

Plus how much of that training is for firearms use, and how much is for all the other things law enforcement officers can do? The greatest power police have is the power of arrest without consequence as long as proper procedures are followed.

And your comments on this board would tell us you shouldn't have the right to vote. See how that works?

Government on all levels has the power to promulgate the law; government includes the Supreme Court, which has ruled (in Heller) that the 2nd A. claim ("shall not be infringed") is bogus, hyperbole and thus not to be believed.

Your comment on voting rights is a non sequitur.

See: PC 832 Arrest and Firearms Course - Commission on POST

And consider, this follows the required Training Academy, see:

Los Medanos College - Law Enforcement Academy

Your reading of Heller is of course wrong, and biased by your "ME LAW ENFORCEMENT ME GET GUNS YOU DON'T" bullshit.


I don't care about the training requirements, they are a non issue because I have the right to keep and bear arms, and unless I am convicted of a felony or mentally adjudicated no government entity has the constitutional power to say otherwise.

 

[Conservative65]

Forgot about those. Thanks. As you are no doubt aware, facts like these mean nothing to the stains.

Those who talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk, my guess is the first time they see the Elephant they run like a bat out of hell.

Plenty of you lefties constantly talk about gun control but when offered the chance to take away, individually, what you say people shouldn't own, you hide behind the government.

 

[Conservative65]

The constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?

When the police give up their right to guns, and the government can guarantee no criminal will ever have one, I'll give up mine.

Actually I won't, but good luck making my conditions a reality.

I can only speak for the agencies which employed me. To become an armed officer of the law, the applicant is required to pass a written test, pass at least two and most times three oral interviews, take and pass a battery of psychological tests and meet with a psychologist at least two times before offered a conditional offer of employment.

Then a full background investigation will look into the life background of the applicant: Arrest history if any; treatment for Alcohol or other drugs; civil court orders and judgments; found to be a danger to them self or others; Credit history; Residences, reasons for changes of location; education, incl. academic and deportment records; interviews of three persons who provided recommendations and others who might know the applicant (former neighbors, employers, teachers, coaches, etc.).

He/She then must complete POST training in the laws of arrest and firearm training, the latter of which is on going for their entire career. Sign off on a use of force policy and for the first (usually) year continue to be trained by a Field Training Officer (FTO). Not until the probationary employed proves him or her self in the field are they offered permanent employment. At any time before that offer is made, they can be sent home with no right to appeal.

If you Marty wanted to own a gun, and such a background check were required, your written comments on this Message Board would be sufficient and necessary to tell you, Hell No! You would never be allowed the privilege to own, possess or operate a gun of any kind!

Government doesn't get to decide that.

Plus how much of that training is for firearms use, and how much is for all the other things law enforcement officers can do? The greatest power police have is the power of arrest without consequence as long as proper procedures are followed.

And your comments on this board would tell us you shouldn't have the right to vote. See how that works?

Government on all levels has the power to promulgate the law; government includes the Supreme Court, which has ruled (in Heller) that the 2nd A. claim ("shall not be infringed") is bogus, hyperbole and thus not to be believed.

Your comment on voting rights is a non sequitur.

See: PC 832 Arrest and Firearms Course - Commission on POST

And consider, this follows the required Training Academy, see:

Los Medanos College - Law Enforcement Academy

They have the power to promulgate the law based on the authority the supreme law at that level of government allows them to do so. When whatever body establishes law beyond that authority, they aren't making law but pushing an agenda.

You idiots on the left talk about what you think related to something that is in the Constitution (2nd Amendment) yet have no problem with pushing an agenda involving things for which the Constitution makes absolutely no mention (marriage, social welfare, healthcare).

 

[Conservative65]

The constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?

When the police give up their right to guns, and the government can guarantee no criminal will ever have one, I'll give up mine.

Actually I won't, but good luck making my conditions a reality.

I can only speak for the agencies which employed me. To become an armed officer of the law, the applicant is required to pass a written test, pass at least two and most times three oral interviews, take and pass a battery of psychological tests and meet with a psychologist at least two times before offered a conditional offer of employment.

Then a full background investigation will look into the life background of the applicant: Arrest history if any; treatment for Alcohol or other drugs; civil court orders and judgments; found to be a danger to them self or others; Credit history; Residences, reasons for changes of location; education, incl. academic and deportment records; interviews of three persons who provided recommendations and others who might know the applicant (former neighbors, employers, teachers, coaches, etc.).

He/She then must complete POST training in the laws of arrest and firearm training, the latter of which is on going for their entire career. Sign off on a use of force policy and for the first (usually) year continue to be trained by a Field Training Officer (FTO). Not until the probationary employed proves him or her self in the field are they offered permanent employment. At any time before that offer is made, they can be sent home with no right to appeal.

If you Marty wanted to own a gun, and such a background check were required, your written comments on this Message Board would be sufficient and necessary to tell you, Hell No! You would never be allowed the privilege to own, possess or operate a gun of any kind!

Government doesn't get to decide that.

Plus how much of that training is for firearms use, and how much is for all the other things law enforcement officers can do? The greatest power police have is the power of arrest without consequence as long as proper procedures are followed.

And your comments on this board would tell us you shouldn't have the right to vote. See how that works?

Government on all levels has the power to promulgate the law; government includes the Supreme Court, which has ruled (in Heller) that the 2nd A. claim ("shall not be infringed") is bogus, hyperbole and thus not to be believed.

Your comment on voting rights is a non sequitur.

See: PC 832 Arrest and Firearms Course - Commission on POST

And consider, this follows the required Training Academy, see:

Los Medanos College - Law Enforcement Academy

Your reading of Heller is of course wrong, and biased by your "ME LAW ENFORCEMENT ME GET GUNS YOU DON'T" bullshit.


I don't care about the training requirements, they are a non issue because I have the right to keep and bear arms, and unless I am convicted of a felony or mentally adjudicated no government entity has the constitutional power to say otherwise.

They do the same thing with the Constitution itself. More than once, a lefty has argued that the 2nd amendment related to the militia. A cursory reading of my State's laws provide something that stated who was considered to be in the militia in my State. Three standards were set and I met one of them.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

"You're too biased to understand reality (that's a compliment)."

My compliments to you as well

"How does a nation of 300 million + inhabitants, holding an equal number + or - amount of guns go about confiscating each and every one of them?"

Who said they could? I said the lefts argument is transparent, not that it was possible, you just keep making it about something else

And given our democracy - something the lunatic fringe chooses to deny - what makes you think, if you ever do,- that The People would not support such an endeavor, and send the Pols who passed such legislation packing in the next election?

Have no idea, and for the purpose of this post don't care what they would or would not support...the argument is transparent as is evidenced by the title of the thread....that for some reason you just keep running from pillar to post to avoid.

 

[fncceo]

No one wants really big nukes to be available, surely.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The constitutional provision for private gun ownership has been made redundant by time as armaments have since progressed beyond the firearm. And a citizens army wielding small arms would have little chance of success against a tyrannical government armed with the some of the best weapons of war man has ever made. What do you think?

When the police give up their right to guns, and the government can guarantee no criminal will ever have one, I'll give up mine.

Actually I won't, but good luck making my conditions a reality.

I can only speak for the agencies which employed me. To become an armed officer of the law, the applicant is required to pass a written test, pass at least two and most times three oral interviews, take and pass a battery of psychological tests and meet with a psychologist at least two times before offered a conditional offer of employment.

Then a full background investigation will look into the life background of the applicant: Arrest history if any; treatment for Alcohol or other drugs; civil court orders and judgments; found to be a danger to them self or others; Credit history; Residences, reasons for changes of location; education, incl. academic and deportment records; interviews of three persons who provided recommendations and others who might know the applicant (former neighbors, employers, teachers, coaches, etc.).

He/She then must complete POST training in the laws of arrest and firearm training, the latter of which is on going for their entire career. Sign off on a use of force policy and for the first (usually) year continue to be trained by a Field Training Officer (FTO). Not until the probationary employed proves him or her self in the field are they offered permanent employment. At any time before that offer is made, they can be sent home with no right to appeal.

If you Marty wanted to own a gun, and such a background check were required, your written comments on this Message Board would be sufficient and necessary to tell you, Hell No! You would never be allowed the privilege to own, possess or operate a gun of any kind!

Government doesn't get to decide that.

Plus how much of that training is for firearms use, and how much is for all the other things law enforcement officers can do? The greatest power police have is the power of arrest without consequence as long as proper procedures are followed.

And your comments on this board would tell us you shouldn't have the right to vote. See how that works?

Government on all levels has the power to promulgate the law; government includes the Supreme Court, which has ruled (in Heller) that the 2nd A. claim ("shall not be infringed") is bogus, hyperbole and thus not to be believed.

Your comment on voting rights is a non sequitur.

See: PC 832 Arrest and Firearms Course - Commission on POST

And consider, this follows the required Training Academy, see:

Los Medanos College - Law Enforcement Academy

They have the power to promulgate the law based on the authority the supreme law at that level of government allows them to do so. When whatever body establishes law beyond that authority, they aren't making law but pushing an agenda.

You idiots on the left talk about what you think related to something that is in the Constitution (2nd Amendment) yet have no problem with pushing an agenda involving things for which the Constitution makes absolutely no mention (marriage, social welfare, healthcare).

What does the phrase "general Welfare" mean to you?

 

[Conservative65]

When the police give up their right to guns, and the government can guarantee no criminal will ever have one, I'll give up mine.

Actually I won't, but good luck making my conditions a reality.

I can only speak for the agencies which employed me. To become an armed officer of the law, the applicant is required to pass a written test, pass at least two and most times three oral interviews, take and pass a battery of psychological tests and meet with a psychologist at least two times before offered a conditional offer of employment.

Then a full background investigation will look into the life background of the applicant: Arrest history if any; treatment for Alcohol or other drugs; civil court orders and judgments; found to be a danger to them self or others; Credit history; Residences, reasons for changes of location; education, incl. academic and deportment records; interviews of three persons who provided recommendations and others who might know the applicant (former neighbors, employers, teachers, coaches, etc.).

He/She then must complete POST training in the laws of arrest and firearm training, the latter of which is on going for their entire career. Sign off on a use of force policy and for the first (usually) year continue to be trained by a Field Training Officer (FTO). Not until the probationary employed proves him or her self in the field are they offered permanent employment. At any time before that offer is made, they can be sent home with no right to appeal.

If you Marty wanted to own a gun, and such a background check were required, your written comments on this Message Board would be sufficient and necessary to tell you, Hell No! You would never be allowed the privilege to own, possess or operate a gun of any kind!

Government doesn't get to decide that.

Plus how much of that training is for firearms use, and how much is for all the other things law enforcement officers can do? The greatest power police have is the power of arrest without consequence as long as proper procedures are followed.

And your comments on this board would tell us you shouldn't have the right to vote. See how that works?

Government on all levels has the power to promulgate the law; government includes the Supreme Court, which has ruled (in Heller) that the 2nd A. claim ("shall not be infringed") is bogus, hyperbole and thus not to be believed.

Your comment on voting rights is a non sequitur.

See: PC 832 Arrest and Firearms Course - Commission on POST

And consider, this follows the required Training Academy, see:

Los Medanos College - Law Enforcement Academy

They have the power to promulgate the law based on the authority the supreme law at that level of government allows them to do so. When whatever body establishes law beyond that authority, they aren't making law but pushing an agenda.

You idiots on the left talk about what you think related to something that is in the Constitution (2nd Amendment) yet have no problem with pushing an agenda involving things for which the Constitution makes absolutely no mention (marriage, social welfare, healthcare).

What does the phrase "general Welfare" mean to you?

The concept of creating an environment where people do for themselves what they should be doing for themselves. It does not mean a situation where one group is constantly forced to provide for another group with socialist based programs.

General welfare does not mean social welfare. Social welfare enables people to refuse to do for themselves yet still get for nothing what those who do for themselves have to earn.

It's not the responsibility of the government to fund healthcare, food, clothing, shelter, or anything else people should be providing themselves. When a government enables those that can do for themselves the ability to skirt that responsibility, they aren't promoting the general welfare, they are destroying. If an able bodied person won't do for themselves, I have no problem seeing them go without. While I do believe everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, their right to do so should not infringe on my rights.