The Right To Bear Arms

[bigrebnc1775]

People who do not understand a 18th century military term need to stay the hell out of the firearms debate. You would look a lot less stupid.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Defense Secretary: 'I Don't Know Why The Hell People Have To Have Assault Weapons' | ThinkProgress

Betcha didn't know he doesn't make law nor does his opinion on this have any legal significance.

But, you like being irrelevant, and least you must like it because you so often are.

The part that gets me is he thinks people don't need armor piercing bullets. One would think a career Army officer would understand that all bullets are armor piercing.

No not all ammo is amour piercing. I have some that will penetrate 3/8 steel plate as far as 200 yards out, those I don't shoot because they cost 2.00 to 5.00 per round.

 

[Dubya]

Defense Secretary: 'I Don't Know Why The Hell People Have To Have Assault Weapons' | ThinkProgress

Betcha didn't know he doesn't make law nor does his opinion on this have any legal significance.

But, you like being irrelevant, and least you must like it because you so often are.

Why wouldn't you think the Secretary of Defense is relevant in a discussion of the 2nd Amendment?

Probably the main argument for people who want continued access to military style weapons is the threat to tyranny. They think they are patriots and preventing tyranny, because of their might, but let's be realistic! For a Tyrant to exist, he would need the military and who is the next person from that Tyrant down the chain of command? That would be the Secretary of Defense. Somehow they are going to have to convince the military to go along and support this Tyrant. People in the military are taught to obey orders, but they are also taught they don't have to obey an unlawful order. Supporting a Tyrant is an unlawful order. The people in the military are not going to support a Tyrant and if their commanders tried to make them do it, that commander would die as soon as ammo was issued. Believe it or not, the people in the military are very patriotic.

What we have are people living a fantasy and endangering the community with their insistence to keep their access to weapons they shouldn't have. Creating access to those weapons puts those weapons into the hands of some very bad people in our society and they do a lot of damage with those weapons. It's a fantasy to think you could fight the military with the weapons available in America. It's the military that prevents tyranny and not you.

Here is some information taken from the minutes during the creation of the 2nd Amendment:

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Notice they didn't want a standing Army, because a Tyrant could get control of that standing army to seal his power. That's why they chose a regulated militia, because from past experience the militia had to train. Another major concern came from past experience in Europe, where they disarmed the people and that's where the keep and bear arms originates. Infringed doesn't mean the government can't make law about magazine size, it means you can't disarm the people. They were very careful in the way they worded the amendments. You can't get this next concept from the 2nd Amendment, but you get their reasoning from the 1st. Notice they use the word state in the 2nd Amendment. They bent over backwards to express themselves without ever using the word nation.

To get to the minutes of the wording in amendments from the main page click contents, the amendment and click House of Representatives, Amendment to the Constitution. The other links have valuable information on the origin and post amendment developments.

Founders' Constitution

 

[expatriate]

Chief Justice Burger was a smart man. He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.

Then get it repealed.

Good luck with that.

It doesn't need to be repealed... It simply needs to be interpreted by the courts concentrating on the "well regulated militia" aspect. there are plenty of ways to restrict gun ownership - and especially ownership of certain types of high capacity, high caliber, high carnage sorts of arms - that will pass constitutional muster... Especially after Obama gets to appoint two young liberal justices during his second term.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Chief Justice Burger was a smart man. He clearly articulated why the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.

Then get it repealed.

Good luck with that.

It doesn't need to be repealed... It simply needs to be interpreted by the courts concentrating on the "well regulated militia" aspect. there are plenty of ways to restrict gun ownership - and especially ownership of certain types of high capacity, high caliber, high carnage sorts of arms - that will pass constitutional muster... Especially after Obama gets to appoint two young liberal justices during his second term.

 

[zeke]

You are all mouth bigreppie. NOW is the time to start the revolution. Not waiting till the opposition gets its shit together. NOW is the time rebbie. GO FOR IT.

I am sure with your militia, the US Army does not have a chance.

But if I don't here of the revolution starting in the south real soon, I would have to think you are all mouth on a message board and will not put your life on the line just to own a semi automatic weapon.

What's it gonna be? You a leader of the revolution or a mouth of the wanna be revolution?

 

[expatriate]

Bigreb... Are you really saying that there should be zero restrictions on citizens arming themselves?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bigreb... Are you really saying that there should be zero restrictions on citizens arming themselves?

Again what part of shall not be infringed don't you fucking comprehend?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are all mouth bigreppie. NOW is the time to start the revolution. Not waiting till the opposition gets its shit together. NOW is the time rebbie. GO FOR IT.

I am sure with your militia, the US Army does not have a chance.

But if I don't here of the revolution starting in the south real soon, I would have to think you are all mouth on a message board and will not put your life on the line just to own a semi automatic weapon.

What's it gonna be? You a leader of the revolution or a mouth of the wanna be revolution?

It's called Asymmetric warfare dumb ass.

 

[expatriate]

Bigreb... Are you really saying that there should be zero restrictions on citizens arming themselves?

Again what part of shall not be infringed don't you fucking comprehend?

Perfectly OK with landmines in the front yard are you? What about a dual mount 40mm Anti-aircraft battery mounted on the back deck to shoot down those intrusive government agents in their black helicopters? OK with everyone having those as well? what about a satchel nuke? Do you honestly think that is what the founders had in mind? Do you honestly believe their should be ZERO restrictions on an American citizen arming himself and his castle against criminal invasion?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bigreb... Are you really saying that there should be zero restrictions on citizens arming themselves?

Again what part of shall not be infringed don't you fucking comprehend?

Perfectly OK with landmines in the front yard are you? What about a dual mount 40mm Anti-aircraft battery mounted on the back deck to shoot down those intrusive government agents in their black helicopters? OK with everyone having those as well? what about a satchel nuke? Do you honestly think that is what the founders had in mind? Do you honestly believe their should be ZERO restrictions on an American citizen arming himself and his castle against criminal invasion?

Let's stick within the boundaries the second amendment is dealing with

 

[expatriate]

Again what part of shall not be infringed don't you fucking comprehend?

Perfectly OK with landmines in the front yard are you? What about a dual mount 40mm Anti-aircraft battery mounted on the back deck to shoot down those intrusive government agents in their black helicopters? OK with everyone having those as well? what about a satchel nuke? Do you honestly think that is what the founders had in mind? Do you honestly believe their should be ZERO restrictions on an American citizen arming himself and his castle against criminal invasion?

Let's stick within the boundaries the second amendment is dealing with

You mean the boundaries that have been interpreted by SCOTUS over time. The wording of the amendment does not limit arms in any way. answer my question... Do you believe in zero limits on arms or don't you?

 

[HUGGY]

^^^^^^ Crack shot with a .22 rifle.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Perfectly OK with landmines in the front yard are you? What about a dual mount 40mm Anti-aircraft battery mounted on the back deck to shoot down those intrusive government agents in their black helicopters? OK with everyone having those as well? what about a satchel nuke? Do you honestly think that is what the founders had in mind? Do you honestly believe their should be ZERO restrictions on an American citizen arming himself and his castle against criminal invasion?

Let's stick within the boundaries the second amendment is dealing with

You mean the boundaries that have been interpreted by SCOTUS over time. The wording of the amendment does not limit arms in any way. answer my question... Do you believe in zero limits on arms or don't you?

You've not answered my question. What part of shall not be infringed don't you comprehend?
Now if you want to go the supreme court route Miller vs. U.S. ruled in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia and be the kind in common use at the time, and owned by the militia member.

 

[Too Tall]

What makes you think the tank crews, and fighter pilots wont side with the Constitution and with that, their fellow citizens?

The real question is why are these means of protection only available to some citizens. I should be able to own these things as well.

Justice Scalia says the 2nd Amendment doesn't give you the right to own such things.

I didn't read what Justice Scalia said, but did he say if you have legally purchased a firearm it can be taken away from you?

 

[expatriate]

Let's stick within the boundaries the second amendment is dealing with

You mean the boundaries that have been interpreted by SCOTUS over time. The wording of the amendment does not limit arms in any way. answer my question... Do you believe in zero limits on arms or don't you?

You've not answered my question. What part of shall not be infringed don't you comprehend?
Now if you want to go the supreme court route Miller vs. U.S. ruled in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia and be the kind in common use at the time, and owned by the militia member.

So... You are cool with restricting "arms" to single shot, muzzle loaders? I'd be cool with that too. That is certainly what the founders envisioned when the WROTE the 2nd Amendment. I had no idea you'd be in agreement with such a restriction. Because, in this day and age, I could easily imagine folks like you wanting that 40mm AA mount on the back deck, especially given the proliferation of threats from the air.

 

[expatriate]

And I would certainly be all in favor of limiting firearm ownership to only those citizens who agreed to be "well regulated" and participate in regular training as part of a well regulated militia. Are you with me on that one too? Or do you think that everyone should just be able to go down to their local gun shop and buy the biggest, baddest weapon they can buy without any strings attached? THAT doesn't seem congruous with the framer's intent.

 

[OODA_Loop]

And I would certainly be all in favor of limiting firearm ownership to only those citizens who agreed to be "well regulated" and participate in regular training as part of a well regulated militia. Are you with me on that one too? Or do you think that everyone should just be able to go down to their local gun shop and buy the biggest, baddest weapon they can buy without any strings attached? THAT doesn't seem congruous with the framer's intent.

Don't have to be in the militia per SCOTUS.

Individual right.

 

[expatriate]

And I would certainly be all in favor of limiting firearm ownership to only those citizens who agreed to be "well regulated" and participate in regular training as part of a well regulated militia. Are you with me on that one too? Or do you think that everyone should just be able to go down to their local gun shop and buy the biggest, baddest weapon they can buy without any strings attached? THAT doesn't seem congruous with the framer's intent.

Don't have to be in the militia per SCOTUS.

Individual right.

So...40mm AA batteries on everyone's back deck are cool with you?

 

[OODA_Loop]

And I would certainly be all in favor of limiting firearm ownership to only those citizens who agreed to be "well regulated" and participate in regular training as part of a well regulated militia. Are you with me on that one too? Or do you think that everyone should just be able to go down to their local gun shop and buy the biggest, baddest weapon they can buy without any strings attached? THAT doesn't seem congruous with the framer's intent.

Don't have to be in the militia per SCOTUS.

Individual right.

So...40mm AA batteries on everyone's back deck are cool with you?

Cool ? Yes.

Legal ? No.