From Backwoods Home Magazine: 2nd Amendment, the Bill of Rights...long read, but worth it

[SkinsWarrior81]

From the SC case District of Columbia v. Heller:

Nothing currently in the hands of the general public today violates anything that the SC said there. AR-15's are common weapons of the times. No one is asking for rocket launchers and nuclear weapons.

[MattFancy]

Nothing currently in the hands of the general public today violates anything that the SC said there. AR-15's are common weapons of the times. No one is asking for rocket launchers and nuclear weapons.

But it also states its not "unlimited", so that doesn't mean you can have any gun you want.

[AsburySkinsFan]

"Shall not be infringed"

So you should be able to own a nuclear bomb, no where in the Constitution does it limit "arms" to personal firearms, "arms" are routinely used to describe everything from small arms, to tanks, to attack helicopters, strike aircraft, to nuclear weapons. The right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed......so it is my right to own any type of arms that I so choose for that is my unalienable right.

[SkinsWarrior81]

Nope - homicides (not deaths, homicides) by firearm in 2009 - 9203. Homicides by blunt instrument 623. Next highest after firearms was knives at 1836.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.pdf

I did find some stats for 2011 when I looked at this before and from memory in 2011 there were over 12,000 homicides by firearm. In the UK if you adjust for population in 2011 we had between 200 and 300 homicides from firearm.

I had read the blunt trauma thing somewhere and now I can't remember where it was. Meh. Obviously it wasn't true. I do know that the gun murder number is skewed, because it includes all justified homicides (self defense and police shootings).

---------- Post added January-18th-2013 at 11:23 AM ----------

But it also states its not "unlimited", so that doesn't mean you can have any gun you want.

No one is asking for any gun they want, they are asking to maintain the common weapon of the times.

[martytheman]

So this government you speak of doesn't hamstring, hogtie or render ineffective those that oppose them? I'm just wondering if it isn't the pot calling the kettle black? If it wasn't for the corruption, greed and self-serving politicians there wouldn't be a need for lobbyists.

No doubt.

2 words that have always irked me are these: "Career Politician"

How in the blazing blue hell can these people hold senate/house seats for a lifetime?? (Kennedys, Feinstein, etc) These people vote their own raises, and would be the ones to vote on term limits (which is why it will never happen) and yet they're beyond reproach... even though everyone KNOWS priority #1 for any politician is to get re-elected, NOT the welfare of the country...

These people can't even do the basics of their job requirements, (pass a budget, ghost voting, etc) and yet they keep getting rehired AND get raises!!

It's an amazing system we have here.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Nope - homicides (not deaths, homicides) by firearm in 2009 - 9203. Homicides by blunt instrument 623. Next highest after firearms was knives at 1836.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.pdf

I did find some stats for 2011 when I looked at this before and from memory in 2011 there were over 12,000 homicides by firearm. In the UK if you adjust for population in 2011 we had between 200 and 300 homicides from firearm.

Look at you with all your facts, don't you know that different country's statistical numbers cannot be compared to the United States because that's apples and oranges? After all we are really in a fight to protect us from our government. Now, let's stand and say the pledge and then sing the Star Spangled banner before we continue our discussion on the evil nature of the tyrannical government in America.

Seriously....wth

[SkinsWarrior81]

So you should be able to own a nuclear bomb, no where in the Constitution does it limit "arms" to personal firearms, "arms" are routinely used to describe everything from small arms, to tanks, to attack helicopters, strike aircraft, to nuclear weapons. The right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed......so it is my right yo own any type of arms that I so choose for that is my unalienable right.

No one, at any point, has mentioned that. This is a passe argument. Society agreed quite a long time ago that the right to bare arms did not equate for weapons of war. Gun rights advocates are not asking for weapons of war. If you cannot differentiate a semi-automatic rifle from an actual assault rifle, this conversation is probably not going to go very far. The intent, understanding, and implementation of the 2nd amendment is to arm the populace to defend themselves, and their country from foreign or domestic tyranny. Period. Removing rifles removes even the option of resisting such a thing. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant, because someone owning a rifle does not infringe on any of your rights.

Disarming the populace means that tyranny can be had simply via pen to paper. the knowledge of resistance, whether it be paltry in your mind or not is what keeps government in check.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I had read the blunt trauma thing somewhere and now I can't remember where it was. Meh. Obviously it wasn't true. I do know that the gun murder number is skewed, because it includes all justified homicides (self defense and police shootings).

Chalk that up as two things you're wrong about today, the gun death numbers you keep trying to avoid are specifically homicides...i.e. murders.

[SkinsWarrior81]

Chalk that up as two things you're wrong about today, the gun death numbers you keep trying to avoid are specifically homicides...i.e. murders.

You do understand the difference between justifiable homicide and plain old murder, right?

[Bang]

Disarming the populace means that tyranny can be had simply via pen to paper. the knowledge of resistance, whether it be paltry in your mind or not is what keeps government in check.

No one is going to disarm the populace. that is a passé argument.

they can do that to you now with a pen and paper, and your little popguns won't make a bit of difference.

This fantasy of our 2nd being some sort of equalizer is ridiculous.

what keeps the government in check more than your arsenals are the fact that overall there just are NOT just monsters hiding under the bed. That overall, most people in this country want to do the right things.

And thev funny thing is, as actual facts come out and are put to light, the potential monsters are the ones thevNRA prop up the most. the ones who 'ruin it for everybody".

Our ability to prevent tyranny is not because of our guns. The first thing we can do to prevent it is stop being such close minded fools listening to bull**** runaround by people who are actually subverting our way of life.

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

No one, at any point, has mentioned that. This is a passe argument. Society agreed quite a long time ago that the right to bare arms did not equate for weapons of war. Gun rights advocates are not asking for weapons of war. If you cannot differentiate a semi-automatic rifle from an actual assault rifle, this conversation is probably not going to go very far. The intent, understanding, and implementation of the 2nd amendment is to arm the populace to defend themselves, and their country from foreign or domestic tyranny. Period. Removing rifles removes even the option of resisting such a thing. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant, because someone owning a rifle does not infringe on any of your rights.

Disarming the populace means that tyranny can be had simply via pen to paper. the knowledge of resistance, whether it be paltry in your mind or not is what keeps government in check.

LoL! I've seen pretzels less twisted than that logic,

1) we aren't talking about weapons of war

2) the right is given to people to protect themselves from tyranny..............

How might I ask do you suggest that the populace use those arms to protect themselves from tyranny if NOT by using them to wage war?

We need guns to wage war in case of tyranny, but we aren't saying we want weapons of war.....:doh:

[SkinsWarrior81]

No one is going to disarm the populace. that is a passé argument.

~Bang

I agree. I am discussing the ideology that is being brought up and the persecution involved.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You do understand the difference between justifiable homicide and plain old murder, right?

Yep, and the justifiable homicides are not listed in those numbers, because justifiable homicide is NOT a crime and we those numbers are CRIME statistics.

[SkinsWarrior81]

LoL! I've seen pretzels less twisted than that logic,

1) we aren't talking about weapons of war

2) the right is given to people to protect themselves from tyranny..............

How might I ask do you suggest that the populace use those arms to protect themselves from tyranny if NOT by using them to wage war?

We need guns to wage war in case of tyranny, but we aren't saying we want weapons of war.....:doh:

You do understand the difference between a machine gun or rocket launcher versus a semi-automatic rifle, or I am going to assume you do. Now if you actually read what I wrote. you would have read that obviously no one is looking to "have a war" with the government. the idea is that to remove all rifles from the people, there would be no way to even have a token resistance. No legitimate threat of any bloodshed. How the hell would the people stop a fighter jet? I don't have to simply just die without resistance, though.

[MartinC]

Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant, because someone owning a rifle does not infringe on any of your rights.

They kind of do if they shoot you dead with it.

Disarming the populace means that tyranny can be had simply via pen to paper. the knowledge of resistance, whether it be paltry in your mind or not is what keeps government in check.

So in your opinion what's keeping the Governments in check of other other modern democracies around the world where there is no 'right to bear arms'?

[AsburySkinsFan]

You do understand the difference between a machine gun or rocket launcher versus a semi-automatic rifle, or I am going to assume you do. Now if you actually read what I wrote. you would have read that obviously no one is looking to "have a war" with the government. the idea is that to remove all rifles from the people, there would be no way to even have a token resistance. No legitimate threat of any bloodshed. How the hell would the people stop a fighter jet? I don't have to simply just die without resistance, though.

Two words, "asymmetrical warfare".

BTW, you keep saying that no one is advocating for rocket launchers, well why not? There is NOTHING in the Constitution that specifically limits the right to bear arms to small arms, the authors intended to be able to field an army in the face of tyranny (kinda like what they had just did in the Revolutionary War) the weapons of war have changed and I'm sure you'll admit that the Constitution grants people the right to own more than a muzzle loader, so why shouldn't we be able to own whatever arms we wish? After all to restrict my ownership of an M-203 is an infringement of my right to bear arms.

[SkinsWarrior81]

They kind of do if they shoot you dead with it.

So in your opinion what's keeping the Governments in check of other other modern democracies around the world where there is no 'right to bear arms'?

I don't know...You should ask my grandmother, maybe she could tell you.

I violate your rights if I run you over with a car too... what is your point?

---------- Post added January-18th-2013 at 11:51 AM ----------

Two words, "asymmetrical warfare".

BTW, you keep saying that no one is advocating for rocket launchers, well why not? There is NOTHING in the Constitution that specifically limits the right to bear arms to small arms, the authors intended to be able to field an army in the face of tyranny (kinda like what they had just did in the Revolutionary War) the weapons of war have changed and I'm sure you'll admit that the Constitution grants people the right to own more than a muzzle loader, so why shouldn't we be able to own whatever arms we wish? After all to restrict my ownership of an M-203 is an infringement of my right to bear arms.

We discussed this further up. The Supreme Court confirmed that it allows for common weapons of the times. The revolutionaries had cannons... unless they all just materialized out of nowhere. We have evolved as a society, and I think almost everyone would agree that larger and indiscriminate weapons of war such as high explosives and nuclear weapons are not part of that intent.

[Bang]

I agree. I am discussing the ideology that is being brought up and the persecution involved.

OK, however, I don't see limiting magazine sizes, uncuffing the ATF so they can police existing laws, expanding background checks and removing gun show loopholes as persecution.

No one will have their guns confiscated, because no matter what, in a debate like this the answer to progress lies in compromise. It's the only way.

Feinstein may holler about across the board bans, but she'll never get them, and I think most reasonable people can see that.

In fact, i think hiding legislation in otherwise unrelated bills that is designed and written specifically to obstruct law enforcement from being able to do it's job is what actual persecution, tyranny and subversion of our country looks like.

~Bang

[Predicto]

No one, at any point, has mentioned that. This is a passe argument. Society agreed quite a long time ago that the right to bare arms did not equate for weapons of war.

I thought what "society agreed upon" was irrelevant to this discussion. :whoknows:

If I can convince the majority of society that the right to bear private arms should be limited, say, to shotguns and hunting rifles, is that going to be acceptable to you and the other gun advocates? I doubt it.

[MartinC]

I don't know...You should ask my grandmother, maybe she could tell you.

I violate your rights if I run you over with a car too... what is your point?

Not the car argument again. Seriously?

Not sure I follow the grandmother comment. If your referring to WWII period as an argument about the right to bear arms being a deterrent against tyranny there were plenty of arms in the hands of the population in Germany post WWI but that did not stop the rise to power of the Nazi party. There were also lots of arms through the rest of Europe in the hands of individuals and armies but that did little to stop the Nazis from conquering most of Europe and little to deter them afterwards.

The situation in modern US so far removed from that in 1930 and 40's Europe it's silly anyway but in the event some tyrannical power subverted the US Government (left wing or right wing) all the arms in private hands in the US would have very little impact if that Government still controlled and had the support of the military.

In any case today democracies exist across most of Europe and lots of Asia Pacific and govern with the consent of and best interests (at least in intent!) their unarmed populations.

[SkinsWarrior81]

I thought what "society agreed upon" was irrelevant to this discussion. :whoknows:

Desire to reduce people's rights in the name of opinion is irrelevant. You CAN own a tank, a jet fighter, a machine gun, etc. These items are highly difficult to get, due to their being so cost prohibitive, but not impossible. In general society does not have a desire to own high grade weaponry, and the supreme court affirmed that in the Heller case.

[AsburySkinsFan]

We discussed this further up. The Supreme Court confirmed that it allows for common weapons of the times. The revolutionaries had cannons... unless they all just materialized out of nowhere. We have evolved as a society, and I think almost everyone would agree that larger and indiscriminate weapons of war such as high explosives and nuclear weapons are not part of that intent.

So you do believe that the Constitution allows for infringement on the citizen's right to bear arms?

[SkinsWarrior81]

Not the car argument again. Seriously?

Not sure I follow the grandmother comment. If your referring to WWII period as an argument about the right to bear arms being a deterrent against tyranny there were plenty of arms in the hands of the population in Germany post WWI but that did not stop the rise to power of the Nazi party and also lots of arms through the rest of Europe in the hands of individuals and armies but that did little to stop the Nazis from conquering most of Europe and little to deter them afterwards.

The situation in modern US is far removed from that in 1930 and 40's Europe it's silly anyway but in the event some tyrannical power subverted the US Government (left wing or right wing) all the arms in private hands in the US would have very little impact if that Government still controlled and had the support of the military.

It isn't "the car argument". You are claiming that simply owning a firearm violates your rights due to potential for violence. That is an absurd stance. Anything is potentially violent.

My grandmother lived in Czech, and Austria during WW2. People did not have guns. People were not afforded self defense because the Nazi party, who was put into power by the people, decided that firearms only belonged in the hands of the state. They agreed. It doesn't matter what you think about how effective a resistance would be. You must be afforded the right to defend yourself and your property. Will it be successful? Who knows? That isn't the point.

---------- Post added January-18th-2013 at 12:02 PM ----------

So you do believe that the Constitution allows for infringement on the citizen's right to bear arms?

That ruling does not infringe on your right to bear arms.

---------- Post added January-18th-2013 at 12:03 PM ----------

OK, however, I don't see limiting magazine sizes, uncuffing the ATF so they can police existing laws, expanding background checks and removing gun show loopholes as persecution.

No one will have their guns confiscated, because no matter what, in a debate like this the answer to progress lies in compromise. It's the only way.

Feinstein may holler about across the board bans, but she'll never get them, and I think most reasonable people can see that.

In fact, i think hiding legislation in otherwise unrelated bills that is designed and written specifically to obstruct law enforcement from being able to do it's job is what actual persecution, tyranny and subversion of our country looks like.

~Bang

I can't say I particularly disagree with any of that.

Edit: I do think that limiting mag sizes is a pretty ridiculous and token idea. There really is nothing that is going to come from that. Mag changes happen in seconds. At Columbine, they just brought a whole bunch of mags with them and swapped them out.

[AsburySkinsFan]

That ruling does not infringe on your right to bear arms.

Sure it does, they've just redefined arms to mean small arms...I bet if I go to buy a nuclear bomb my right to bear that particular arm will be seriously infringed. BTW, everyone wave to the poor sap at Ft. Meade who has to read this thread because my post just got flagged.

:ciao:

[ZoEd]

Yet, if ou want to drive you wait in line and get your license. Same thing will happen for guns.

Predicto is exactly right. We are talking about sensible measures. Saying you shouldn't be able to shoot a hundred bullets in five seconds is not a burden on ou. It will prevent mentally ill and other "bad guys" as the NRA calls them from getting guns though.

But just like the intent of motor vehicle rules is to protect citizens, does it not become laden down with fees, taxes and unnecessary red tape. Then, the enforcement is a whole other story. For example, you must show proof of insurance, AWESOME, totally support it, 100%!!!! However, I took my proof of insurance into the DMV and the lady told me it wasn't written properly. When I asked to see someone else I was shut down and told I needed to have USAA change it. I called USAA and told them the situation and they had NEVER heard of such a thing and emailed me proof of what the regulation in question was ACTUALLY referencing and suddenly it was ok. Even though the new agent agreed the previous agent was in fact mistaken. You see my point? The way our country words and approves things leaves much of it up to interpretation. This is unacceptable and one of the main reasons I'm skeptical of banning anything until thorough and extensive research and litigation is conducted.

I've never been a supporter of knee jerk responses, ever.