Do you support the second amendment?

[JonNC]

I concur, there’s a 2nd amendment.

I do not agree that using the 2nd is a real argument for the stockpiling and owning of progressively more and more destructive weapons nor allowing their availability where guns keep being manufactured and finding their way into oblivion–till crimes are committed and they are traced to distributors and manufacturers that play the game.

Maran atha!

Angel

Ah. Gotcha. Back to the accusations against manufacturers and dealers. Please name specific dealers and manufacturers who the DOJ have prosecuted. I’m sure Holder and Lynch actively pursued these scoundrels. I want to make sure I’m not buying from a criminal who is federally licensed.

Whether or not you agree is irrelevant. Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. The SCOTUS has upheld this right. The overwhelming majority of gun owners never commit a crime, even those who have a large collection of firearms.
I join you in going after criminals who use firearms illegally, and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law. I will also defend the right of law abiding Americans to not have their rights infringed.

 

[pnewton]

Perhaps you forgot about the fact that the colonists were British citizens who were being denied the right as such.

Nope, not at all.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Perhaps you forgot about the fact that the colonists were British citizens who were being denied the right as such.

Nope, not at all.

Good …

 

[jcrichton]

Whether or not you agree is irrelevant. Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. The SCOTUS has upheld this right. The overwhelming majority of gun owners never commit a crime, even those who have a large collection of firearms.

I join you in going after criminals who use firearms illegally, and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law. I will also defend the right of law abiding Americans to not have their rights infringed.

Note that I’ve never stated that there’s no 2nd Amendment; my argument is that the militia and rights arguments are flawed; given the number of guns in the hands of citizens it is clear that we have driven over that dead horse hundreds of times.

What is really scary is how gun owners feel that more powerful weapons and stockpiles secure their home, business and life so they will fight anything that hints on having responsibility–it’s the blame the criminals for purchasing the guns from the poor industry that wants to safe keep the 2nd and the whole of the constitution.

But you and eye will never come even close to familiar grounds on this.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Cathoholic]

JonNC:

I’m even more perplexed by the odd belief that guns in the hands of humans in government is okay, but not in the hands of human civilians.
Are humans in government to be trusted more than human civilians? Why? After the carnage by governments against civilians in the last century, why would anyone believe its a good thing that only government has guns?

(Well stated JonNC.)

Jcrichton:

This is why the militia is a dream.

But its irrelevant if you think the militia is a dream or not Jcrichton. Why?

Because you cannot just strip people of their Constitutional rights just because you or someone else, thinks those rights are outdated or merely because you think the citizens would be overwhelmed by illicit Government force.

Why not just be forthright and say you want to do away with the Second Amendment? Why not just say you are in favor of changing the Constitution?

(Lawmakers ordinarily are not supposed to have the power to usurp the Constitution. Any of it. I assume you know that. Instead of pretending laws that do so are consistent with the Constitution, why not just ask to amend the Constitution and come out and say you are against the Second Amendment?)

And why not answer all of JonNC’s question above (you have answered only part of it)? WHY would you trust Governments?

jcrichton

What is really scary is how gun owners feel that more powerful weapons and stockpiles secure their home, business and life so they will fight anything that hints on having responsibility

I am not sure what you mean here jcrichton.

Please elaborate. And what is scaring you? Law abiding citizens have had firearms since the inception of the country. Are you just getting scared recently?

Are you preoccupied about the guns that the Government has too or only with laws that would infringe upon the law-abiding citizens? Please clarify.

 

[Cathoholic]

pnewton:

It is almost like this right to oppose the government and the oppression of government depends on one’s political beliefs.

I don’t think anybody here is talking about “opposing the government” pnewton.

But some people may be thinking about if “the Government” were to some day get overthrown by usurpers. That would be a different potential scenario.

The fact that citizens could or could not win is going to be irrelevant to many people. Why?

Because hypothetically at least some of them may rather give their life fighting against an oppressor, then live under the dictates of that oppressor.

“Live Free or Die” is the State Government motto of New Hampshire for example.

Just because YOU don’t think citizens will be able to resist a usurping force would not negate the Constitution.

If YOU really believe in disarmament why not insist the Government to disarm itself first THEN ask the law abiding citizens about it?

Do you think the Government should disarm itself Pnewton? (I don’t think our Government should disarm itself, but you may. I’ll wait and see what you think).

 

[JonNC]

If YOU really believe in disarmament why not insist the Government to disarm itself first THEN ask the law abiding citizens about it?

That has always been one of my stated prerequisites for surrendering my firearms. I will surrender my firearms when the United States government certifies that:

1. no foreign government or entity has weapons
2. no foreign criminals have firearms
3. no domestic criminals have firearms
4. no US government agency at any level of government has firearms
5. no US criminal has firearms

Now, I’m happy with that list, but a female relative of mine, who is rather petite, adds to the list; “when males give up testosterone”.

 

[JonNC]

[> =“jcrichton, post:839, topic:452415”]

Note that I’ve never stated that there’s no 2nd Amendment; my argument is that the militia and rights arguments are flawed; given the number of guns in the hands of citizens it is clear that we have driven over that dead horse hundreds of times.

Thank you for this straightforward response. May I ask what precisely is flawed: the framers’ decision to claim this in the 1st clause, or the Courts’ affirmation in Heller?

What is really scary is how gun owners feel that more powerful weapons and stockpiles secure their home, business and life so they will fight anything that hints on having responsibility–it’s the blame the criminals for purchasing the guns from the poor industry that wants to safe keep the 2nd and the whole of the constitution.

Why does it scare you? An honest question. Even if one includes suicide, the number of people injured or killed by guns numbers about 30,000. That’s a tiny fraction of the population (though tragic for them).

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think anybody here is talking about “opposing the government” pnewton.

I found these.

The colonial govts agreed to rebel, just like the Confederate States voted to rebel.

Jon, it is naïve to think that as selfish as Americans (and other people are) having access to weapons will guarantee their safety if their government would turn on them.

So, your philosophy is that, since you don’t think people can defend their liberty from government tyranny, we should take the tools away from them and give those tools to the government?

So the US founding is actually very unique, and the use of guns are critical part of our founding.

It may not be the only argument, but this the need for protection from tyranny is hardly uncommon, despite the chilling consequence of such an argument.

 

[MonteRCMS]

When discussing these issues, it is also important to “add” the issue of civil asset forfeiture.

When the police can seize private property with no recourse, then we are starting to get into this business of improper government control.

 

[Vonsalza]

When discussing these issues, it is also important to “add” the issue of civil asset forfeiture.

When the police can seize private property with no recourse, then we are starting to get into this business of improper government control.

Such is already the reality for virtually every mile of privately owned fuel pipeline, rail line and federally owned highway in the US. Very few folks that have been directly affected by eminent domain felt like they had sufficient recourse or proper compensation. But by-George, we still see many freedom loving conservatives push for the latest pipeline like the Keystone, don’t we?

Oh the irony… As long as it’s someone else, right?

 

[jcrichton]

Thank you for this straightforward response. May I ask what precisely is flawed: the framers’ decision to claim this in the 1st clause, or the Courts’ affirmation in Heller?

Hi, Jon!

…remember that dead horse–we keep going around in circles; it’s best to let this go; I cannot convince you to seek reason; you cannot convince me to strap from head to toe (yeah, exaggeration is a must to drill the point home).

Why does it scare you? An honest question. Even if one includes suicide, the number of people injured or killed by guns numbers about 30,000. That’s a tiny fraction of the population (though tragic for them).

Because it is the same “enlighten” thought as the kneeling–it is devoid of reality and based on what is perceived as the “right to…”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Monte!

…so shoot the police on sight ‘cause they might be ripping people off?’

The answer is not to form a coalition or armada to face off with the police; the answer is to get involved in the government; move your local, state, and national politicians to enact laws that would correct the abuse.

Stockpiling weapons and weekend war exercises will never do!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, vonsalza!

…wait, what? You, my friend, are totally unpatriotic… what with calling for boycotting black gold!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[pnewton]

Gun waiting periods could save hundreds of lives a year, study says.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/gun-waiting-periods-could-save-hundreds-lives-year-study-says

I know this is kind of sciency for some, but that is what we are left with thanks to the Dickey Amendment.

I know, correlation does not equal causation, but that is why we need to repeal the Dickey Amendment so this sort of research can continue without pressure from the NRA and others, like arms dealers, that profit from the proliferation of guns.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I couldn’t find a better link–but do the math, the muskets would take longer than the hand-guns (or whatever they’re called); yet, consider that people would be lined up (3 thick) to be somewhat effective… so you want to compare today’s weapon’s destructive power to them yonder chunks?

Muzzle loaders changed a lot over their use period. Some were extremely inaccurate. Some were low-velocity. Some were really slow to load. However, by the Civil War, the most commonly used rifles were more accurate than an AR-15 today, much more deadly, and fairly high velocity.

And the loading slowness was relative. Supposedly, a skilled rifleman could get off three aimed shots in a minute’s time. But I have seen re-enactors beat that by a lot, at the sacrifice of some of the velocity. They tear the cartridge, pour in the powder, put in the ball, smack the butt of the stock on the ground to set the charge instead of messing with a ramrod, put the cap on the nipple while aiming and fire.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Waiting periods are going to accomplish little if anything. Plenty of people own multiple guns. If they want to commit a crime, why not take one of the guns they already own? If you want to commit a crime with a gun, why buy it from a licensed dealer and leave a paper trail connecting the gun to yourself?

How does this affect the bad guys? They do not purchase their guns from licensed dealers and therefore will not be subject to the waiting period. It will affect good people who find themselves threatened and are faced with the cruel dilemma of violating the law or being defenseless.

Violent crime has been on a downswing for a long time now. My state eliminated the waiting periods and our murder rate dropped the year after. Your data is useless.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Anyone who uses electronics doesn’t boycott that.

 

[Jamie5]

Good data is never useless. It seems this thread has been going in circles for 800 posts, so again to those so adamant about no gun control at all, do you thing guns should be regulated at all then? If so, what are YOUR ideas for common sense regulation?

It just isn’t very prudent to think that anyone who favors gun control is against the second amendment, it’s not good to divide the country or world into US vs THEM, but that’s precisely what this thread demonstrates.

 

[JonNC]

Cathoholic wrote:
I don’t think anybody here is talking about “opposing the government” pnewton.

I found these.

“So, your philosophy is that, since you don’t think people can defend their liberty from government tyranny, we should take the tools away from them and give those tools to the government?”

Umm, no. That is a misrepresentation. There is a significant difference when the phrase “government tyranny” is used. That is not the same as “opposing the government”.