Gun rights and the federal laws.

[GotSmart]

This subject is threatening to hijack another thread that has some real impact on our society.

So here is one to post on the subject.

Please keep it civil, as this subject is also extremely important to everyone in the vandwelling community.  

I was raised in a military family, with guns laying around the house.  I have owned many different guns, and there were times I had to pull them on people in self defence.  Today I only have collectors weapons.  

[font=Georgia, Times, 'Times New Roman', serif]Amendment II[/font]

[font=Verdana, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[/font]

When it comes to gun rights, I believe that any person with "normal" mental capabilities has the right to own a gun if they desire one.  If someone has been deemed a threat to society they have lost that right, as the protection of the weak outweighs the rights of any individual.

I also believe The Second Amendment was written to give the people protection from the possibility of our government becoming one that blocks the rights and privileges of the people.  It also gives the people the power to protect themselves against invasion.     

The original draft read this way.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

I could keep on this all day...  Ideas, opinions, rants (keep it civil.) 

 

[Canine]

The problem is,the guns they were talking about were muzzle loaders.There are limits to all the amendments of the bill of rights.At one time I had 8 pistols and probably 20 rifles.I hunted a lot and re-loaded and did a lot of target shooting.Don't hunt anymore,I just lost the desire to kill anything.I'm now down to a 22 and a shotgun and don't expect to be buying any more.I sleep better knowing the SG is next to my bed.Hope I never have to use it.As far as the second amendment goes,I believe there are some people who should not be allowed to have guns and there are some guns people should not be allowed to have.Military exempted of course.Something to think about;that racist in SC killed more Americans in 2 minutes than ISIS has killed in 2 years.Yes,I'm pro 2nd amendment, but not unlimited access.

 

[GotSmart]

The problem is,the guns they were talking about were muzzle loaders.There are limits to all the amendments of the bill of rights.At one time I had 8 pistols and probably 20 rifles.I hunted a lot and re-loaded and did a lot of target shooting.Don't hunt anymore,I just lost the desire to kill anything.I'm now down to a 22 and a shotgun and don't expect to be buying any more.I sleep better knowing the SG is next to my bed.Hope I never have to use it.As far as the second amendment goes,I believe there are some people who should not be allowed to have guns and there are some guns people should not be allowed to have.Military exempted of course.Something to think about;that racist in SC killed more Americans in 2 minutes than ISIS has killed in 2 years.Yes,I'm pro 2nd amendment, but not unlimited access.

In 1540, rifling was invented.  Right after the war of independance gun technology went crazy.  The long rifle used during that war had an accuracy of 300 yards.  The Brown Bess could fire four shots a minute.  That is a 60 caliber ball, bigger than the government allows today. 

As to your second claim about ISIS>>>??? 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/u...-as-soldiers-women-sold-as-sex-slaves-127761/

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]UN Report on ISIS: 24,000 Killed, Injured by Islamic State; Children Used as Soldiers, Women Sold as Sex Slaves[/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/u...ves-127761/#uQ0JMVR1rfFHIloM.99[/font][/SIZE]

 

[Matlock]

In my opinion, a firearm is a mechanical device. I use mine for punching holes in paper. It becomes a weapon when it's used for offensive or defensive purposes. The Military trains us to that end. Full auto anything is a Military weapon.

Firearm ownership isn't a right but a privilege that is granted to a individual because they meet the requirements. It's more about maturity, mental competency and training. If there is a hole in your story you don't get one. Period. Mom or Dad or Granddad can't legally give you one without breaking the law if you aren't competent. Dealers can't sell you one if you can't pass a background check and that should hold true for your neighbor as well but does not.

Something around 80 million gun owners in the USA according to the NRA a few years ago. That's one in 4 Americans. I believe the second amendment is well represented and respected.
Just my 2¢

 

[LeeRevell]

NOWHERE does the Second Amendment mention "muzzle loaders". The Founders intent was for "The People" in the entirety to be armed with the same small arms as the Government. The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with "Sporting Purposes", hunting, or even personal defense. It is solely about the People being able to defend themselves from an oppressive government, if needs be. Reading the various letters by those august men during and after this period gives us an understanding of their intent. Modern 'translations' are useless. The words are there to be read by all. Period.
While I do agree felons and the mentally troubled shouldn't have weapons of ANY kind (not just firearms), it's a very slippery slope we try to climb when we attempt to place unfair and unconstitutional limits upon this Amendment. The problem becomes, how does one identify those individuals who pose such a danger? No one has come up with a reasonable method yet. So we must seek to exercise a just punishment for the misuse of weapons, and for the commission of crimes. We must NOT end up punishing the honest law-abiding gun owner, for the crimes of another.
We currently have literally hundreds of laws regarding firearms on the books. Far too many. Some are conflicting. Those we have are more than sufficient to attend to the criminals, IF we use those laws as they should be used. Too often it is the Courts that fail us.
Obviously, I am a very strong supporter of the Second Amendment, as it stands. It stands to protect all the other rights we have.

 

[Canine]

GS,if youhad a point about rifled bbls or the brown bess.I must have missed it.On average 30 American citizens are killed with firearms every day.Almost all by homicide,suicide or accident.Very few in self defense.I just find it hard to believe someone could have carried a brown bess into Sandy Hook school and left 29 children and teachers dead.Or into a movie theater in Aroura and left 12 dead or into a church in SC and left 9 dead.And on and on and on,ad infintum.

 

[Canine]

Lee,Of course the 2nd amendment was written about muzzle loaders.Thats the arms they had back then.Would you be ok with people having missle launchers?Where would you draw the line?

 

[GotSmart]

GS,if youhad a point about rifled bbls or the brown bess.I must have missed it.On average 30 American citizens are killed with firearms every day.Almost all by homicide,suicide or accident.Very few in self defense.I just find it hard to believe someone could have carried a brown bess into Sandy Hook school and left 29 children and teachers dead.Or into a movie theater in Aroura and left 12 dead or into a church in SC and left 9 dead.And on and on and on,ad infintum.

Obviously you missed the counter point to your point.
Teaches me to present facts against emotions.   :huh:
I believe an armed populous keeps the need to shoot random people down.  Knowing someone is armed kind of keeps the bad guys away.  
I can counter your Sandy Hook with the fact that the gunman did not have a legal weapon in his possession.  He had that unlawfully. He was on a list to not possess weapons. 
I counter your Aurora CO with a Bolivar MO.  A gunman was turned in before he got to the theater. He was inspired by the media glorifying the CO shooting. 
As to your claim about SC and the ISIS.  You completely ignore the fact that your claim about the number of people killed has been disproven.  It is sad that 9 Americans mean more than 24,000 people in the middle east. 
Get a real argument with real facts. Then I will continue this debate with you.
Sad because we agree on some points.

 

[LeeRevell]

Firearm ownership isn't a right but a privilege that is granted to a individual because they meet the requirements.

Utterly wrong.  Firearm ownership is a RIGHT, guaranteed (NOT given or conferred) by the Second Amendment.  A privilege is something granted by the State, as in your privilege to drive your car.  Please, study the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  They are NOT called the Bill of Privileges.  The various Municipal, State and Federal agencies have taken it upon themselves to cast limits upon our RIGHTS, not just the Second.  Such is the price of Society.

 

[Canine]

Well,before this discussion goes off the rails,I think I'll wish everyone a good evening and move on.

 

[Gary68]

myself being a red blooded american and son of the revolution who's ancestors where scottish borderers is more likely to overthrow a government then do what it says to do,it's a family tradition,i think i'll keep my firearms

 

[LeeRevell]

Lee,Of course the 2nd amendment was written about muzzle loaders.Thats the arms they had back then.Would you be ok with people having missle launchers?Where would you draw the line?

How do you derive "missile launchers" from small arms?  First you need a refresher on weapons terminology.  Then reread the Second Amendment.  Read what it SAYS, not what you wish it said.  it is quite simple.

 

[John_Camping]

My thoughts all IMO only:

1. The second amendment is clearly about defending ourselves as a community from the government not each other, it has evolved into an individual right.
2. I think the fundamental right represented in the modern second amendment is to possess and maintain all reasonable and necessary means of defending ourselves, each other, and our freedoms.
3. I don't think the second amendment has to mean "fire" arms. While they are still sometimes necessary to self defense, and may always be, I hope the day comes when lethal means aren't necessary to that end.
4. If you want to prepare yourself to overthrow an oppressive government forget your guns, an armed uprising against the modern US military is a non-starter. Train your hacking skills and drone skills.
5. The second amendment doesn't defend nor is it necessary to our liberties, it is a result of them. We defend our liberties, not by hoarding bullets but by being informed, voting, paying attention to all threats to our freedoms, and understanding that freedom's price isn't paid by soldiers, it's paid by all American's, civilian and military alike. Why the NRA and people who are vehement about defending ourselves from an oppressive government rage about magazine sizes but don't seem to see the threat in things like the TSA, Patriot Act, or abuses like the ones uncovered by Edward Snowden is beyond me.

Honestly after having watched this country's behavior since 9/11 I think we are failing as a country to defend our freedoms and the NRA is more about political power and big toys that go boom than about defending our freedom.

 

[RobBob]

I recently learned that in England, which implemented its final step of "gun control" in 1997, a person now has no legal right to self-defense, but must accept violent attacks without doing anything which might cause harm to the attacker.  Those who cannot override their natural instincts to defend themselves or their loved ones face jail time.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/20985-self-defense-in-the-uk-is-illegal

Predictably, violent crime in England has skyrocketed.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...e-england-the-most-violent-country-in-europe/

This is where the slippery slope of "common sense gun laws" leads, and is meant to lead, no matter what the rhetoric to the contrary.  Gun control is really people control.  A disarmed populace is a helpless populace, which is a dream-come-true scenario for power-hungry leaders and violent criminals.  

In the United States, guns are used for protection of self and others far more often than the media will ever tell you about, and usually without firing a shot.  The mere presence of a gun, or the sound of a gun being cocked, will often cause would-be attackers to flee. When we call 911, cops with guns show up to help us, but often not in time to stop the crime or save a victim's life, as many a dead woman with only a PFA to defend herself would tell you, if she wasn't dead.

Would you put a sign on your van (or stick & brick home) that said, "Gun Free Zone"?  If not, why not?

For a wealth of statistical information with references, you can check out:

https://www.gunowners.org/pdf/2014gunfacts.pdf

So, those of us who pay attention to what is really happening in countries which have already implemented gun control, as opposed to blindly accepting the mainstream media's romantic fantasy that violence will disappear and everyone will be safe and happy when those naughty guns are gone, want no part of being disarmed, either gradually or all at once.  It is dehumanizing and dangerous.  

RobBob

 

[flying kurbmaster]

My thoughts all IMO only:

1. The second amendment is clearly about defending ourselves as a community from the government not each other, it has evolved into an individual right.
2. I think the fundamental right represented in the modern second amendment is to possess and maintain all reasonable and necessary means of defending ourselves, each other, and our freedoms.
3. I don't think the second amendment has to mean "fire" arms. While they are still sometimes necessary to self defense, and may always be, I hope the day comes when lethal means aren't necessary to that end.
4. If you want to prepare yourself to overthrow an oppressive government forget your guns, an armed uprising against the modern US military is a non-starter. Train your hacking skills and drone skills.
5. The second amendment doesn't defend nor is it necessary to our liberties, it is a result of them. We defend our liberties, not by hoarding bullets but by being informed, voting, paying attention to all threats to our freedoms, and understanding that freedom's price isn't paid by soldiers, it's paid by all American's, civilian and military alike. Why the NRA and people who are vehement about defending ourselves from an oppressive government rage about magazine sizes but don't seem to see the threat in things like the TSA, Patriot Act, or abuses like the ones uncovered by Edward Snowden is beyond me.

Honestly after having watched this country's behavior since 9/11 I think we are failing as a country to defend our freedoms and the NRA is more about political power and big toys that go boom than about defending our freedom.

well said,

 

[SoulRaven]

If you take the political right and wrongs regarding Clive Bundy's stand-off against armed Federal Agents wanting to enforce a disputed claim against Bundy and an armed group of civilians who had as much firepower as the agents. The civilians actually had the high ground as far hitting ones's target. The very fact, at least in my opinion, that cooler heads prevailed only because there was about to be a bloodbath with equal casualties on both sides,  something The FBI or ATF was not accustomed to. 

I am not an anarchist by any means but I intend to protect my rights and if needed my neighbors against unlawful acts by anyone. That includes illegal seizure by police or theft by others, just a difference in semantics but means the same thing.

I am not a hunter but keep myself proficient with the weapons I own.

 

[Canine]

Back in the day (lol) many of the guns were muzzle loaders, but keep that in context. The guns the civilians had were about the same guns the government had. So if we were to take that comparison, we now should have more access to more types of guns.

I like how many of the Jewish population are very, very supportive of firearm ownership. "Never again" will they knowingly subject themselves to the Holocaust.

Imagine what Ukraine would be like if the populace had been armed. Do you think Putin would've invaded that country then stole part of it? What would happen if a country tried to invade the U.S.? I imagine a much different scenario. Our dirt is not different than Ukraine's. No one is immune to invasion from another country, but if we can defend ourselves, we can make it much harder.

Look at what happened at the Bundy Ranch. Federal government was abusing its power, so the civilians took up arms and stood against them and they backed down. If we didn't have firearms, something tells me the outcome would have been different. And no one got shot. No one went off the rails. All of those people with guns acted with restraint and common sense and a positive outcome resulted.

The Battle of Athens is an even better example! And it isn't taught in schools that I know of. (Hmmmm. If it isn't taught in schools, I wonder why.) A superb example of civilians taking up arms against a corrupt portion of government.

 

[LeeRevell]

Speaking of the Jewish folks, they have an excellent Second Amendment organization of their own, "Jews For the Preservation Of Firearms Ownership" - http://jpfo.org/
They and the NRA have a lot of good info on our rights, how to protect them, and what the various firearms laws are all about.
I have been an NRA Life Member for about twenty years.
"Gun Owners of America" - GOA (http://www.gunowners.org/) , is another good firearms owners organization, more 'grassroots' than the NRA, but with much less clout on Capital Hill. The NRA, like them or not, is our "800 lb. Gorilla" keeping an eye on the Fed_Gov. They are the only gun rights org that has access to those hallowed Halls of Congress.
As with any important issues and interests, we must get active in protecting our rights and our American heritage from those who would take them away.
If you want to know the truth, you MUST go beyond the blow-dried airheads on the evening news, regardless of network. ALL network news, whether CNN or Fox, is biased.

 

[akrvbob]

When they wrote the First Ammendment, there were using quill pins and block-typesetters. No TVs, movies or internet back then. Is today's electronic media exempt from the First Amendment?

There were no strippers or pornography back then, but the courts have ruled the 1st Amendment covers them.

Obviously this is a silly argument I'm making The Bill of Rights is about "What are fundamental, given-at birth, rights of every human, that must not be taken away by the government." It is not about technology!!! The 1st amendment is about freedom to express your opinion, whatever the media. The 2nd amendment is about self-defense from others and from the government, not the methods used of defense.

However, every fundamental right has limits, the devil is in the details of where we set the limits. We aren't going to reach conclusions about that so let's tread carefully.
Bob

 

[Seraphim]

My thoughts all IMO only:

1. The second amendment is clearly about defending ourselves as a community from the government not each other, it has evolved into an individual right.
2. I think the fundamental right represented in the modern second amendment is to possess and maintain all reasonable and necessary means of defending ourselves, each other, and our freedoms.
3. I don't think the second amendment has to mean "fire" arms. While they are still sometimes necessary to self defense, and may always be, I hope the day comes when lethal means aren't necessary to that end.
4. If you want to prepare yourself to overthrow an oppressive government forget your guns, an armed uprising against the modern US military is a non-starter. Train your hacking skills and drone skills.
5. The second amendment doesn't defend nor is it necessary to our liberties, it is a result of them. We defend our liberties, not by hoarding bullets but by being informed, voting, paying attention to all threats to our freedoms, and understanding that freedom's price isn't paid by soldiers, it's paid by all American's, civilian and military alike. Why the NRA and people who are vehement about defending ourselves from an oppressive government rage about magazine sizes but don't seem to see the threat in things like the TSA, Patriot Act, or abuses like the ones uncovered by Edward Snowden is beyond me.

Honestly after having watched this country's behavior since 9/11 I think we are failing as a country to defend our freedoms and the NRA is more about political power and big toys that go boom than about defending our freedom.

Good thoughts, all. But one problem:

Someone stated if there's a 'hole in your story', you don't get a gun. That's not true. Anyone can buy a gun. Just not from someone with a dealers license, legitimately.

Right or wrong, we are inundated with firearms, and the government - other than those purchased from dealers - has no idea what kind, how many and who possesses them. Gun control laws will not change that. A criminal who wants a gun will get one. Period.

I prefer the option to legally possess what a criminal illegally can get, for the day may come I need to protect myself or family, and I would like to be, at least, as well armed as the criminal I face. Were I not, the criminal wins - hands down.

I have no objections to procedures which might delay a purchase, such as background checks, etc. I don't mind paying a hefty fee to the government to purchase and register firearms with more destructive power than is necessary for hunting or self defense. A sub machine gun, for example, is not necessary for either, but it's a lot of fun to shoot. Due to its destructive capability, it's reasonable the government wants to monitor them.

But to attempt to remove all firearms from our society would a vain endeavor. It would fail. Criminals would still possess them, and it would be safer for them to fleece their victims.