Discussion in 'Life After Brown' started by Dr.Brown, Jan 12, 2013.
takes a few seconds.... we need the support!!
Ruger - Protect Your Rights
Every once in awhile I deliver to a place that makes AR-15's. Hoping I can jump to the front of the line next time I'm there. One of the perks of a ups man.
We have a place that makes ARs also. Almost all former mil guys. Cool place.
Found this yesterday and signed. Also January 19th at 12pm is a pro-second amendment march on your state capitals. Be there or be square.
Make sure you and your buddies re-read the 2nd Amendment before you begin your march. "Right to bear arms" was meant only for a "well regulated militia", not for the right of a private citizen to own an assault rifle. Just sayin'.
Everybody has an opinion but not everybody is an ...
........as you interpret it. Just sayin'.
While I disagree with your statement in general as to what the 2nd amendment actually means, just what is the highest form a rifle do you consider to be legal before it becomes an "assault" rifle? The 2nd amendment does not address this.
Truth be known, the Second Amendment does not in the least suggest that certain weapons cannot be banned, only that the government could not fully disarm the populace. Even Scalia understands that.
somewhat one point I was trying to make.... I think we may differ in the direction on how far "fully disarm" should go but I cant completely disagree with you. When determining what stays and what goes though, my main goal is to make sure that all the "good" guys get as many weapons as they should want; yet also making sure that the "bad" guys have as few as possible.... not the other way around
So why do people think there is any Second Amendment threat? The government we elect can decide for the periods of their office what is and is not Constitutionally protected as far as arms control goes and the courts can play referee. I think alot of people are getting a real lesson in what their rights really are and are not.
because governments have done it before and doing so in many places now. Its a distrust in government. Thats what the bill of rights were created for in the first place (protections for individuals against a government). The Constitution was put into place to restrict and outline what the federal government is permitted to do.... and outside of that scope should not be allowed (though it does anyway sometimes), which doesnt help the trust factor
Scalia must be a damn fascist.
All Scalia said is that there is room for gun control. That already happens. And of course he is but one voice. A lot depends on who the others around him are. The direction we seem to be heading as a country doesnt look great for gun rights at this time. When and where elected officials take it only adds or takes away the inherent distrust. I still stand by my beliefs though that I want to see more good guys with guns than bad. The current climate of banning guns will promote peace makes no sense to me. Its not about the guns, its about society and responsibility.
He said more than gun control. He recognized the necessity of the government to ban certain weapons. Not only as a reaction to the times, but as a well set precedent.
Thats the trouble with the whole situation. In the long run gun control isn't about guns---its about control ---and all you end up doing is controlling the law abbiding citizens and the bad guys get what they want anyway.
There is room for no more gun control, period. Educate yourselves and understand the enormous amount of gun laws in this country. It's about chipping away until there is nothing left. Handguns are responsible for most of gun homicide. Next is the handgun. This is a witch hunt on weapons that look scary but function the same as any other hunting rifle. There is no more to give and we have had enough of the eroding of our freedoms. The second is supposed to ensure citizens have armament PARITY with the government. We aren't close to that anymore, therefore nothing will be given.
Also realize Justice Scalia has said he isn't even sure if the second doesn't protect SHOULDER FIRED MISSILES. Yes, anything hand-held is constitutionally protected as it should be. The second is not about sport nor hunting but about checks and balances from within. Disarming good people of their weapons will not stop mass-murder of innocents. Restricting magazines sizes and banning scary looking weapons that function the same as other semi-automatics will not stop the mass-murder of innocents. Look at the statistics of gun homicide in America. 10,000 a year? Halve that when you remove inner-city murders from gangs knocking each other off. Look at states like Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas. No major cities with overwhelming gang violence; their homicide rate per 100,000 is lower than countries with across the board gun control.
The Virgina Tech massacre involved two pistols, not the AR-15 and killed more people than any of the recent tragedies. It takes mere seconds to reload a firearm and continue shooting. Less than seconds if you're good. The arbitrary magazine size argument is nothing more than a useless restriction. You gun-grabbers are wasting critical time putting half the American population on the defense of perhaps the most important constitutional amendment instead of finding REAL WAYS to solve the problem of looney's going off the edge. Better background checks, a serious and tough look at the state of mental health in this country are the answers. Not the banning or restriction of things that have black accessories attached to them. Remember, the people interested in castrating the second amendment aren't doing it for protection of anyone. The statistics and research prove gun control does not work. Why? Because good people will remain good, crazy people will always go crazy and find ways to kill massive amounts of people. Be it with guns, bombs, fire (197 killed by arson in one attack by one lunatic), knives, poison et cetera.
"The surprising conclusion of the study:
"Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world".
The typical uninformed gun-grabber lawmaker:
So you're suggesting 300,000,000 guns owned legally have in fact been owned illegally? Wake up, you are part of the militia, buddy.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Are you an able bodied citizen UpstateNYUpser? Mentally no, but physically I assume so. Lucky for you, you're a part of the militia.
Your "well regulated militia" garble has been debated to death and debunked, luckily by our own supreme court.
Look up H.R. 11654 of June 28th, 1902 aka The Dick Act of 1902
UpstateNYUPser, if you want a horse in the race perhaps you should educate yourself on subjects before you make yourself look like a fool time and time again on a public forum. It is clear on this issue you know less than squat and it's dangerous that your uninformed opinion potentially aids in the further eroding of our freedoms.
I think, Liquid, you are picking and choosing your Supreme Court rulings.
Separate names with a comma.