What firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment

[M14 Shooter]

If the 0.0000001% chance that you face multiple gunmen, I would still say you don't need a 50 caliber or AK 47. You need to not piss multiple people off to want to kill you. Besides I think if you were that person, you would have those guns illegally anyways.

But I view it as what does a law abiding citizen have that is reasonable and able to defend yourself INSIDE your house.

This ignores the other part of the intent of the 2nd - the collective exercise of the right to self-defense. This almost exclusively takes plae outside the home and involves multiple potential targets.

Never mind that your perception of what someone needs to protect his home doesnt create a sound argument for the restriction of weapons that fall outside that fold. An AR15 or M16 or AK47 is well-suited for home defense and can unquestionably be used effectively in that role.

Why in this day in age should you be able to pull a gun on someone nowadays?

Because that someone may be threatening you with violence...?

We are much more civilized that we were 250 years ago. We don't need guns to protect ourselves out on the streets.

Well... if crime isnt that big of a deal, you'll then agree that we don't need any more gun control.

One of my brothers friend got in jail for 2 months for pulling a gun out on someone but not shooting it as intimidation. I think he should of got more time.

Yeah. So? This is relevant, because...?

Their is absolutely no reason for a gun in our society outside of hunting and protecting yourself

Um... didn't you just ask "Why in this day in age should you be able to pull a gun on someone"? Havent you just asnwered that question?

There is no reason that someone should have to be in threat of their own life because some schizophrenic right winger feels the whole world is getting to kill him so he has to carry an AK 47 to protect himself. Thats straight up retarded.

Not nearly so much as your comment, above.

Neve rmind that you completely ignored what I posted:
[You] ignore the other part of the intent of the 2nd - the collective exercise of the right to self-defense. This almost exclusively takes plae outside the home and involves multiple potential targets.

Never mind that your perception of what someone needs to protect his home doesnt create a sound argument for the restriction of weapons that fall outside that fold. An AR15 or M16 or AK47 is well-suited for home defense and can unquestionably be used effectively in that role.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why in this day in age should you be able to pull a gun on someone nowadays? We are much more civilized that we were 250 years ago. We don't need guns to protect ourselves out on the streets.

One of my brothers friend got in jail for 2 months for pulling a gun out on someone but not shooting it as intimidation. I think he should of got more time. Their is absolutely no reason for a gun in our society outside of hunting and protecting yourself. There is no reason that someone should have to be in threat of their own life because some schizophrenic right winger feels the whole world is getting to kill him so he has to carry an AK 47 to protect himself. Thats straight up retarded.

I sat in a restaurant just last night with a 1911 on my side. Enjoyed my meal, didn't point it at anyone, and other than my family and a LEO who nodded at me as I was leaving, no one knew I had it. That's an every day thing for me now. The world we live in sucks.

They're everywhere you go, JFK. You'd be in the floor crying like a little school girl if you actually could see all the ones you're within 10 feet of every day. They're everywhere now. Probably 1 for every 10 people you see, if not more. And the number of people carrying is growing FAST.

So you admit being schizophrenic? Great but water is wet too.

Its too bad you don't have anything worthwhile to say.
But, that's what happens when people run out of talking points.

 

[CMike]

WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency is facing renewed scrutiny over the extent of its domestic surveillance program, with critics in Congress saying its recent intercepts of the private telephone calls and e-mail messages of Americans are broader than previously acknowledged, current and former officials said.


broader and broaden?

bigreb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reading problem?

Before Pres. Bush america could wiretap without a warrant a foreign terrorist to a foreign terrorist, but not a foreign terrorist to a terrorist within the US.

The Patriot Act changed it so law enforcement could wiretap a call from a suspected foreign terrorist to a domestic foreign terrorist.

The point of it has been to get intelligence information to stop terrorist attacks from occurring.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reading problem?

Before Pres. Bush america could wiretap without a warrant a foreign terrorist to a foreign terrorist, but not a foreign terrorist to a terrorist within the US.

The Patriot Act changed it so law enforcement could wiretap a call from a suspected foreign terrorist to a domestic foreign terrorist.

The point of it has been to get intelligence information to stop terrorist attacks from occurring.

Thats not the argument. The argument is that obama expanded the patriot act from wire tapping of domesctic to suspected foreign terrorist, to domestic to domestic. within the United States.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reading problem?

Before Pres. Bush america could wiretap without a warrant a foreign terrorist to a foreign terrorist, but not a foreign terrorist to a terrorist within the US.

The Patriot Act changed it so law enforcement could wiretap a call from a suspected foreign terrorist to a domestic foreign terrorist.

The point of it has been to get intelligence information to stop terrorist attacks from occurring.

Thats not the argument. The argument is that obama expanded the patriot act from wire tapping of domesctic to suspected foreign terrorist, to domestic to domestic. within the United States.

And, biggiereb, has provided no evidence of that. He thinks expanded use means broadened power. Of course he is wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Before Pres. Bush america could wiretap without a warrant a foreign terrorist to a foreign terrorist, but not a foreign terrorist to a terrorist within the US.

The Patriot Act changed it so law enforcement could wiretap a call from a suspected foreign terrorist to a domestic foreign terrorist.

The point of it has been to get intelligence information to stop terrorist attacks from occurring.

Thats not the argument. The argument is that obama expanded the patriot act from wire tapping of domesctic to suspected foreign terrorist, to domestic to domestic. within the United States.

And, biggiereb, has provided no evidence of that. He thinks expanded use means broadened power. Of course he is wrong.

Why haven't you responded to refute my last reply. I sure you saw it because you made a comment right after I made that reply.
The original intent of the patriot act was for international wire tapping obama expanded it to domestic wire tapping.
Obama Admin. Council Pushes to Reinforce Domestic Wiretapping
DailyTech - Obama Admin. Council Pushes to Reinforce Domestic Wiretapping[/QUOTE]

 

[Ringel05]

What does this have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thats not the argument. The argument is that obama expanded the patriot act from wire tapping of domesctic to suspected foreign terrorist, to domestic to domestic. within the United States.

And, biggiereb, has provided no evidence of that. He thinks expanded use means broadened power. Of course he is wrong.

Why haven't you responded to refute my last reply. I sure you saw it because you made a comment right after I made that reply.
The original intent of the patriot act was for international wire tapping obama expanded it to domestic wire tapping.
Obama Admin. Council Pushes to Reinforce Domestic Wiretapping
DailyTech - Obama Admin. Council Pushes to Reinforce Domestic Wiretapping

Jake I knew you would see it my way and runaway.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I did. You have no proof that the new extension authorizes new domestic wiretapping authority. Why? It doesn't. The Obamites are doing what the Bushies did. I get a kick when you get caught in your own misdefinitions, biggie, that turn into lies as you try to argue your way out of them.

You are like Palin that way: no brain no pain. You are not hurting, simply just blurting.

 

[Vast LWC]

What about the ink pen or the internet? Did the founders think we would be using email and ink pens to exercise our first amendment rights. Or should we still be using parchment and with quail? Should we appeal all laws that weren't written on parchment and with quail?

Nooo... I think you misunderstand me, I was just answering the OP, not stating my opinion on Second Amendment rights.

I am in fact a firm supporter of second amendment rights. In fact the only time in the recent past that I have supported any anti-gun legislation was to disagree with Virginia's support of Guns in bars.

Alcohol and guns don't mix, just like alcohol and cars.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I did. You have no proof that the new extension authorizes new domestic wiretapping authority. Why? It doesn't. The Obamites are doing what the Bushies did. I get a kick when you get caught in your own misdefinitions, biggie, that turn into lies as you try to argue your way out of them.

You are like Palin that way: no brain no pain. You are not hurting, simply just blurting.

No you didn't I posted after you, then Ragel posted then I posted again. With the link you ran from.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I did. You have no proof that the new extension authorizes new domestic wiretapping authority. Why? It doesn't. The Obamites are doing what the Bushies did. I get a kick when you get caught in your own misdefinitions, biggie, that turn into lies as you try to argue your way out of them.

You are like Palin that way: no brain no pain. You are not hurting, simply just blurting.

No you didn't I posted after you, then Ragel posted then I posted again. With the link you ran from.

Nope. Read your link. It does not say that's what the law does. Read it carefully, because it your evidence that does not support your case.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I did. You have no proof that the new extension authorizes new domestic wiretapping authority. Why? It doesn't. The Obamites are doing what the Bushies did. I get a kick when you get caught in your own misdefinitions, biggie, that turn into lies as you try to argue your way out of them.

You are like Palin that way: no brain no pain. You are not hurting, simply just blurting.

No you didn't I posted after you, then Ragel posted then I posted again. With the link you ran from.

Nope. Read your link. It does not say that's what the law does. Read it carefully, because it your evidence that does not support your case.

Well jake maybe you should read it the first time. I'll help with some key points

To gain new powers would be expanding the powers
1. Previously detailed nuances of the plan call for the government also to gain new warrantless surveillance powers over other communications resources such as email (e.g. Gmail), text messages (including encrypted services, like RIM's), social networks (e.g. Facebook), and internet forums.

Within the United States which was ot the intent of the patriot act.
2. Thus U.S. citizens use foreign cell phones, operating on foreign web sites, or using foreign-based email services, may have their Constitutional rights violated even while communicating with other U.S. citizens.

Obama is wanting to reinforce citizen to citizen communication.

3.Obama Admin. Council Pushes to Reinforce Domestic Wiretapping

 

[JakeStarkey]

Post the direct evidence. Your word does not count, son. It hasn't for a very long time, homer boy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Post the direct evidence. Your word does not count, son. It hasn't for a very long time, homer boy.

Read the link, I posted. I also posted the key points from the source I used.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, quote directly from your link, post to it, then we can go read it. But you have to provide the evidence. If you won't do that, then you have no point and should go watch cartoons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, quote directly from your link, post to it, then we can go read it. But you have to provide the evidence. If you won't do that, then you have no point and should go watch cartoons.

Fucking read it bitch. I will not fetch it for you I posted the key points thats shows it was expanded from it's original intent. If you want to try and debunk it you show something other than your opinion that proves me wrong.

 

[BrianH]

The left has NEVER cared what the Constitution said. That is why we are in the mess we are now.

Total BS. We didn't create the unconstitutional Patriot Act. The Right did. So lets not act like the right is all holy, they are actually quite the opposite. They hate Americans that aren't in the top 1%. But continue being an idiot. It suits you.

The Senate just extended it....

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Senate continued the act. They did not increase its provisions, despite bigreb's continual lie to the contrary. However, since biggie is a big statist type guy when it comes to oppressing his enemies, I am sure that he would support such an extension if it does happen.

 

[BrianH]

The Senate continued the act. They did not increase its provisions, despite bigreb's continual lie to the contrary. However, since biggie is a big statist type guy when it comes to oppressing his enemies, I am sure that he would support such an extension if it does happen.

I'm not sure if the bill has been submitted or proposed to Congress yet, however, it is something that the Obama adminstration is seeking to expand upon. It's called the Communications Assistance for (or To) Law Enforcement Act. There's numerous articles on the subject from 2010 in which they report that the bill is supposed to be proposed during 2011. This may be precisely the reason why the Senate extended the Patriot Act.