The right to own guns, 2nd amendment

[2aguy]

Hi. Thanks for explanation, historically it does make sense. I have nothing against gun ownership really, Im just curious why a law abiding citizen wants a gun (even if I dont question his right to have one but if I can have a gun why would I want one even if not fearing for my safety maybe for sports shooting?). And do you really think if Jews in Nazi Germany had Guns the holocaust wouldnt happen? The police and military will always be stronger then some citizens even with a gun.

In 1943, about 200 Warsaw Ghetto Jews got hold of guns, very ordinary rifles and handguns. They carried out what is known today as the Warsaw Ghetto Resistance, during which they held off a full Regiment of Germans for a full month, killing hundreds of them.

Imagine how history would have been changed if all or most of the Jews in 1930s Germany had guns. Do you think the Hitler gang would even have attempted anything like the Holocaust if there were hundreds of thousands of armed Jews to contend with? Of course the Wehrmacht would eventually have wiped the Jews out -- but would it be worth the effort and the loss to them? That is the question in all such conflicts.

If you'd like to learn more about that bit of WW-II history, Google up Warsaw Ghetto Resistance.

And another aspect......Europe disarmed their people after World War 1...so after the Germans defeated the armies of Europe, the civilians were helpless.......I remember seeing a documentary about guns were dropped into France...they were pistols that were so bad you had to pretty much be at arms length to hit the enemy........they were intended to help the French acquire the guns of the Germans...kill the soldier, take his gun.....as they were hanging around Paris and other places...

If you face heavy, armed resistance in every country you conquer....it becomes impossible to hold those countries....unarmed people...much easier....if Germany faced hundreds of thousands of armed people in each country..........that changes the equation for invasion....that is why Switzerland wasn't invaded...they had 435,000 armed civilians ready to resist after any invasion.......so the Germans did not invade..they did, however, invade every other European country....

 

[initforme]

I own quite a few guns myself. My gun rights have never been under siege....nor will I ever send the NRA another cent after belonging for 20 some years. They are a lobby organization and aren't interested in hunters.....just the gun manufacturers. I've heard this same nonsense for fifty years. They're gonna take your guns. Only low IQ folk buy into that load of crap. I like my guns and I love to hunt. But this fear mongering bs is lies....all lies.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Why is it so important for "freedom"? I dont get that really,

That's right, you don't get it.

 

[initforme]

Its in the constitution and its not going anywhere. Our gun tights are safe. The rest is all fear tactics and mindless, stress mind LESS banter.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

One argument has been touched on here, and tha't the concealed care issue. One reason spoken of is in areas/states when concealed care is permitted, and the crime rate has dropped, it's because in such place, criminals may not attempt a crime because they don't know who, or how many people are armed.

To put it simply, Mortimer, an armed citizenry is a deterrent to criminal activity. You will find that most areas the have a high crime rate are those that ban, or severely restrict gun ownership. See Chicago, NYC,etc. ,

 

[2aguy]

I own quite a few guns myself. My gun rights have never been under siege....nor will I ever send the NRA another cent after belonging for 20 some years. They are a lobby organization and aren't interested in hunters.....just the gun manufacturers. I've heard this same nonsense for fifty years. They're gonna take your guns. Only low IQ folk buy into that load of crap. I like my guns and I love to hunt. But this fear mongering bs is lies....all lies.

Yes.......and you think your hunting shotguns and rifles are safe...now that is funny. They may be one of the last on their list, but they are on the list, and had hilary won, they would have gone a long way to getting a bunch of guns........the planned to get rid of the Lawful Commerce in Arms act, and then use law suits to intimidate the gun makers into obeying them...that, and the Supreme Court....

you are fool if you don't understand this......

 

[2aguy]

I own quite a few guns myself. My gun rights have never been under siege....nor will I ever send the NRA another cent after belonging for 20 some years. They are a lobby organization and aren't interested in hunters.....just the gun manufacturers. I've heard this same nonsense for fifty years. They're gonna take your guns. Only low IQ folk buy into that load of crap. I like my guns and I love to hunt. But this fear mongering bs is lies....all lies.

This is how they were going to do it.....

Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans.


A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

 

[MikeK]

Its in the constitution and its not going anywhere. Our gun tights are safe. The rest is all fear tactics and mindless, stress mind LESS banter.

If it isn't obvious to you that the anti-gun faction is moving forward one little step at a time it's because you aren't looking.

Back in the 60s one could walk into a gun shop, take his pick of any rifle or shotgun, pay for it and walk out with it, no requirements except for proof of age 18 -- and the receipt was made out to "Cash" if preferred. Consider how much that has changed.

If things continue along the same line we can look forward to being able to keep only one single-shot, bolt-action, .22 rifle, chambered for short, and to bear it in a locked container only to and from a federally supervised range where ammo will be issued, used, or returned. Thus our Second Amendment right to "keep" and "bear" arms will be smilingly upheld.

Little by little, one small step at a time. They know that's the only way to do it and that's how it will be done.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

IMO it is not about a revolution against a "government." We just had that by voting for The Donald and having The Donald as our new President. It is primarily for defense against savages that the "government" imported the past few decades, and the savages on welfare they do not incarcerate enough though they have served notice they are unfit to live in a free society.

Which of course firearms are there to stop a government that perpetuates the problem by refusing to listen to the will of the people.

 

[initforme]

Again all a bunch of bs and rhetoric. I surely rescinded my membership to the NRA at the right time. Its in the bloody constitution. My Remington 270 bolt is safe for another year until next deer season.

 

[2aguy]

Again all a bunch of bs and rhetoric. I surely rescinded my membership to the NRA at the right time. Its in the bloody constitution. My Remington 270 bolt is safe for another year until next deer season.

Except it isn't........and we are lucky to have the NRA...without it and the 2nd Amendment foundation our guns would already be gone....

 

[Political Junky]

Why is it so important for "freedom"? I dont get that really, never owned a gun, and never felt unfree. Actually I would feel uncomfortable if many people in my street owned guns, in Texas even students go with guns to University. Maybe America is a land of criminals that law abiding citizens need guns to protect themselfes but not in Austria. We are a secure and peaceful country.

I want a gun.

I have a right guaranteed by the Constitution to own and carry a gun.

Ergo ...

Do you belong to a well organized militia?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why is it so important for "freedom"? I dont get that really, never owned a gun, and never felt unfree. Actually I would feel uncomfortable if many people in my street owned guns, in Texas even students go with guns to University. Maybe America is a land of criminals that law abiding citizens need guns to protect themselfes but not in Austria. We are a secure and peaceful country.

I want a gun.

I have a right guaranteed by the Constitution to own and carry a gun.

Ergo ...

Do you belong to a well organized militia?

No need..

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Its in the constitution and its not going anywhere. Our gun tights are safe. The rest is all fear tactics and mindless, stress mind LESS banter.

If it isn't obvious to you that the anti-gun faction is moving forward one little step at a time it's because you aren't looking.

Back in the 60s one could walk into a gun shop, take his pick of any rifle or shotgun, pay for it and walk out with it, no requirements except for proof of age 18 -- and the receipt was made out to "Cash" if preferred. Consider how much that has changed.

If things continue along the same line we can look forward to being able to keep only one single-shot, bolt-action, .22 rifle, chambered for short, and to bear it in a locked container only to and from a federally supervised range where ammo will be issued, used, or returned. Thus our Second Amendment right to "keep" and "bear" arms will be smilingly upheld.

Little by little, one small step at a time. They know that's the only way to do it and that's how it will be done.

Considering the pro-2A changes between 1990-current day, it seems most unlikely.

The guns are out there. They are not coming back. Even a negative SCOTUS decision would be summarily dismissed.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why is it so important for "freedom"? I dont get that really, never owned a gun, and never felt unfree. Actually I would feel uncomfortable if many people in my street owned guns, in Texas even students go with guns to University. Maybe America is a land of criminals that law abiding citizens need guns to protect themselfes but not in Austria. We are a secure and peaceful country.

I want a gun.

I have a right guaranteed by the Constitution to own and carry a gun.

Ergo ...

Do you belong to a well organized militia?

No. It's not required.

 

[Political Junky]

Why is it so important for "freedom"? I dont get that really, never owned a gun, and never felt unfree. Actually I would feel uncomfortable if many people in my street owned guns, in Texas even students go with guns to University. Maybe America is a land of criminals that law abiding citizens need guns to protect themselfes but not in Austria. We are a secure and peaceful country.

I want a gun.

I have a right guaranteed by the Constitution to own and carry a gun.

Ergo ...

Do you belong to a well organized militia?

No. It's not required.

The 2nd Amendment says so.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why is it so important for "freedom"? I dont get that really, never owned a gun, and never felt unfree. Actually I would feel uncomfortable if many people in my street owned guns, in Texas even students go with guns to University. Maybe America is a land of criminals that law abiding citizens need guns to protect themselfes but not in Austria. We are a secure and peaceful country.

I want a gun.

I have a right guaranteed by the Constitution to own and carry a gun.

Ergo ...

Do you belong to a well organized militia?

No. It's not required.

The 2nd Amendment says so.

No it doesn't. As has been explained numerous times to you retards, further the Supreme Court AGREES.

 

[Political Junky]

Why is it so important for "freedom"? I dont get that really, never owned a gun, and never felt unfree. Actually I would feel uncomfortable if many people in my street owned guns, in Texas even students go with guns to University. Maybe America is a land of criminals that law abiding citizens need guns to protect themselfes but not in Austria. We are a secure and peaceful country.

I want a gun.

I have a right guaranteed by the Constitution to own and carry a gun.

Ergo ...

Do you belong to a well organized militia?

No. It's not required.

The 2nd Amendment says so.

No it doesn't. As has been explained numerous times to you retards, further the Supreme Court AGREES.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

Again all a bunch of bs and rhetoric. I surely rescinded my membership to the NRA at the right time. Its in the bloody constitution. My Remington 270 bolt is safe for another year until next deer season.

And the NRA is about the only organized institution that lobbies Congress that will let you keep your Remington model 270 bolt-action rifle. If the NRA goes away, they may let you keep your weapon but they will require you to be tested that can not work the bolt fast enough to classify your gun as an "Assault Rifle".

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I want a gun.

I have a right guaranteed by the Constitution to own and carry a gun.

Ergo ...

Do you belong to a well organized militia?

No. It's not required.

The 2nd Amendment says so.

No it doesn't. As has been explained numerous times to you retards, further the Supreme Court AGREES.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope.

Find me an official legal reference to that as a requirement of the right prior to the 20th Century.