Why I love the 2nd Amendment......

[OldWiseGuy]

The same thing I do with my katana; he has a fun time.

That said, it's natural law and self-evident that the government derives its powers by delegation from the people like you and I. If you and I do not have the right to own assault weapons then we cannot delegate that right to the government since we do not have it and cannot delegate something we do not have. So then, doesn't it follow that the government does not have the right to posses assault weapons?

Finally, I must know: why the fear-mongering?

 

[Lilly Owl]

What do well regulated militias need assault weapons for? Well, other than the ones created by and maintained by the federal government, aka the Army, et al?

-- A2SG, and what are those regulations, by the way.....

I like you. You're naive.
The citizens of any country outnumber the government that rules over them. Because the government that rules them is populated by members of them.
When the Administrative branch of power over you has assault weapons, it is incumbent on the people they rule to have assault weapons also.

It's a matter of respecting the fire power and the potential.

You can never say 'they' are not trying to take our guns from us.
Certainly someone in Great Britain said that in 1989. And now....

Any government that you believe is empowered to give you your rights, believes itself entitled to limit them for your own good.

People think America is a free country. Why is that?
What is free here exactly?
We pay income taxes so that we're legally permitted to earn our living.
We pay property taxes so we're legally allowed to rest our heads.

Are we free?
Or are we simply living by the rules that let us think we're free to live while ruled.

What do citizens need assault weapons for?
What do the citizens among us empowered above us need assault weapons for?

It's a matter of respect.

 

[A2SG]

The president wants to inflict another of the 'death by a thousand' cuts.

What has he specifically said to lead you to that conclusion?

An 'assault' weapon has 'select fire' capabilities. These are not available to the general public.

Adam Lanza had a Bushmaster AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle which used a 30 round magazine.

What does a responsible gun owner need one of these weapons for?

"A well-regulated militia" is not a 'constitutional regulation' regarding the composition, discipline, or capabilities of a militia.

Seems to me, then, that we need exactly those kinds of regulations, if we were to keep with the intent of the Amendment.

-- A2SG, tho, now that you mention it, I'm a bit unclear on why we haven't had them in all this time.....

 

[KWCrazy]

But it doesn't take an expert to know that you don't need an assault weapon to stop an individual looter.

-- A2SG, if you're facing an army of them, well, I'd say the problem has gone beyond self defense, and it's time for those well regulated militias we keep hearing about....

You keep saying "Assault weapons" as if there was such a specific thing. Hammers are assault weapons, and kill more people per year that long rifles. You're talking about rifles that are capable of carrying multiple rounds. Other than fully automatic rifles, a man with two pistols can put more rounds downrange in a short period of time than a man with a semi automatic rifle regardless of capacity. Give me two Glocks with 10 round magazine VS one AR-15 with a 20 round magazine and I'll empty first. So it's not just about firepower, and it's not just about the number of rounds in the magazine. A well trained shooter can change magazines very quickly, so the rate of fire still depends more on target acquisition and action.

I have the right to shoot as a hobby, for practice, to vent stress, or just because I like loud noises. So long as I do so in a proper and safe manner, it doesn't matter if I have a single shot .22 or a belt fed mini gun. It isn't going to effect you in the least.

Amazingly, those who are the softest on crime are the first to want to take away the rights of people to protect themselves against crime. That includes mobs and gangs. However, the principle reason that we have the right to keep and bear arms is to protect against a tyrannical government. Dictators love an unarmed populace. You aren't going to resist a tyrannical government without a certain amount of firepower, which is what the founders intended.

You say that nobody wants to take away ALL guns, but there are liberals saying just that even tonight. A news anchor violated the law in Washington DC by holding up an EMPTY 20 round magazine without a rifle attached. Such a component has never killed anyone, and yet they are illegal in Washington DC. Fortunately for him he was a liberal, so he won't be prosecuted.

I guess Obama and his supporters finally got the massacre they wanted when they ILLEGALLY sold guns to drug cartels in Mexico. What did the liberals do to him for that felony? They re-elected him!

If you voted for Obama then you knowingly elected someone who illegally sold guns to people who murdered other people with them. You have absolutely no credibility to pretend to be outraged because law abiding Americans have them.

 

[A2SG]

That's ok, we'll protect you.

Thanks for the offer, but I've lived over 50 years without your protection, so I think I'm fine.

-- A2SG, besides, there is already a well regulated militia-like group in place for exactly that kind of thing, they're called police officers....

 

[EdwinWillers]

You keep saying "Assault weapons" as if there was such a specific thing. Hammers are assault weapons, and kill more people per year that long rifles. You're talking about rifles that are capable of carrying multiple rounds. Other than fully automatic rifles, a man with two pistols can put more rounds downrange in a short period of time than a man with a semi automatic rifle regardless of capacity. Give me two Glocks with 10 round magazine VS one AR-15 with a 20 round magazine and I'll empty first. So it's not just about firepower, and it's not just about the number of rounds in the magazine. A well trained shooter can change magazines very quickly, so the rate of fire still depends more on target acquisition and action.

I have the right to shoot as a hobby, for practice, to vent stress, or just because I like loud noises. So long as I do so in a proper and safe manner, it doesn't matter if I have a single shot .22 or a belt fed mini gun. It isn't going to effect you in the least.

Amazingly, those who are the softest on crime are the first to want to take away the rights of people to protect themselves against crime. That includes mobs and gangs. However, the principle reason that we have the right to keep and bear arms is to protect against a tyrannical government. Dictators love an unarmed populace. You aren't going to resist a tyrannical government without a certain amount of firepower, which is what the founders intended.

You say that nobody wants to take away ALL guns, but there are liberals saying just that even tonight. A news anchor violated the law in Washington DC by holding up an EMPTY 20 round magazine without a rifle attached. Such a component has never killed anyone, and yet they are illegal in Washington DC. Fortunately for him he was a liberal, so he won't be prosecuted.

I guess Obama and his supporters finally got the massacre they wanted when they ILLEGALLY sold guns to drug cartels in Mexico. What did the liberals do to him for that felony? They re-elected him!

If you voted for Obama then you knowingly elected someone who illegally sold guns to people who murdered other people with them. You have absolutely no credibility to pretend to be outraged because law abiding Americans have them.

This is the American Politics forum. Inconvenient truths aren't allowed here.

Welcome to CF, btw

 

[EdwinWillers]

Adam Lanza had a Bushmaster AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle which used a 30 round magazine.

What does a responsible gun owner need one of these weapons for?

What business is it of yours, or anyone's what a responsible gun owner owns, or why?

 

[KWCrazy]

-- A2SG, besides, there is already a well regulated militia-like group in place for exactly that kind of thing, they're called police officers....

In an emergency situation, the police will arrive in time to make their reports, trace the outline of your body in chalk, take a few pictures and add you to the list of statistics.
Or
They add the other guy to the list of statistics because you took the initiative to protect yourself and your family.
Your choice.
The bad guys already have guns and don;t care what law abiding people make illegal.

 

[A2SG]

The same thing I do with my katana; he has a fun time.

That said, it's natural law and self-evident that the government derives its powers by delegation from the people like you and I. If you and I do not have the right to own assault weapons then we cannot delegate that right to the government since we do not have it and cannot delegate something we do not have. So then, doesn't it follow that the government does not have the right to posses assault weapons?

As nice an idea as that is, I have no problem with the idea of well regulated militias having and being able to use weapons, even automatic ones, if necessary. Seems to me what we need here are well regulated militias, and specific definitions on what defines a necessity for their use.

Beyond the armed forces and, perhaps, police forces, I don't know that there are any other well regulated militias.

Finally, I must know: why the fear-mongering?

Gotta admit, it works! Why else would the NRA have the stranglehold on US politics that it has?

-- A2SG, tho, there are helpful signs that that stranglehold is weakening....

 

[A2SG]

How about the lady in Atlanta who shot the intruder 5 times with a .38 caliber revolver, and he got up, got in his car, and drove off?

Seems to me it worked just fine. She was no longer in danger.

What if a second intruder had been with him?

What if he had superpowers? I mean, if we're gonna take hypotheticals into account here, why limit ourselves?

She obviously could not have reloaded in time to stop a second. What if the guy had continued forward and killed her?

So you're saying the only possible way to defend yourself is with an AK-47? No exceptions?

We're still beyond the scope of the second amendment, unless that lady in Atlanta was part of a well regulated militia.

As for me, I'm not totally sold on the rapture theory, so just in case, I'm ready to take out a few demons before I get killed. Watch the part of this movie around 1:36. When that happens, I lay down my weapon for good!

If it's all the same to you, I think I'll give that one a pass.

-- A2SG, but got a link to that piano playing kitty cat? That one's adorable!

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

In an emergency situation, the police will arrive in time to make their reports, trace the outline of your body in chalk, take a few pictures and add you to the list of statistics.
Or
They add the other guy to the list of statistics because you took the initiative to protect yourself and your family.
Your choice.
The bad guys already have guns and don;t care what law abiding people make illegal.

QFT

My wife called me from inside our home once. she said the back door had been broken in, the house was trashed, and things were missing. I said GET OUT OF THE HOUSE. I work 25 miles away, but I immediately called 911 and told the dispatcher I was unsure if the intruders were still on site or not. I made it to my house 5 minutes before the police arrived. Fortunately, the burglars were gone, and my wife ran back out anyways and locked herself in her car until I arrived.

The police and the military do not exist to be your private on site security force. 1 million cops can't cover 300 million citizens.

Every honest citizen without a criminal record or mental health issue severe enough to warrant being barred from gun ownership should have the right to choose whatever gun they believe is necessary to defend their family. I would never shoot someone for stealing stuff. I have insurance for that. But if they attempt to come after my family, they won't live very long.

 

[A2SG]

Having told you what a real assault weapon is let me rephrase your question for you:

"Why does a responsible gun owner need a gun that looks like an assault weapon?"

Since I asked the question, got an answer?

-- A2SG, realizing that the same objective would be served by a replica made out of wood....

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Seems to me it worked just fine. She was no longer in danger.

What if he had superpowers? I mean, if we're gonna take hypotheticals into account here, why limit ourselves?

Don't be silly. He was probably on crystal meth. It isn't hard to imagine that if he could take 5 rounds, get up and drive a car, that if he wanted to he could have killed that lady and her kids before he bled to death. Fortunately, he was so stunned by her counter-attack, he lost his motivation to attack any further. But had an angry partner been with him and armed, the Mother and children could have been murdered.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Since I asked the question, got an answer?

-- A2SG, realizing that the same objective would be served by a replica made out of wood....

I've already answered your question. I can't help open your closed mind. I hope and pray you are never attacked.

My first weapon of choice is a pistol with 15 rounds. But, when the Sheriff authorized shoot on sight, I was very confident to have more firepower to deter any criminals that might come along. Fortunately, it remained a deterrent only, much like our nuclear weapons prevent any attack on the US other than by terrorists. Ever heard of MAD? Mutually Assured Destruction?

 

[A2SG]

Yes:

In April 1994, a truck driver named Reginald Denny drove his truck through south central Los Angeles; unfortunately, the locals were rioting about the Rodney King verdict that day. They blocked Denny's truck, dragged him out, kicked and punched him, and even bashed bricks into his head. How he survived is nothing short of a miracle.

If he had a semi-automatic gun capable of firing 15 - 30 rounds without reloading, the rioters would have backed off and left him alone.

What if he'd only had a handgun? Or a knife? Are you saying nothing short of an assault rifle would have been of any use in that situation?

And further, are you using this example to say what individuals should be able to do in all situations, or only in those involving riots like that one? Just wondering...are you saying each and every US individual should carry assault weapons with them all the time, just in case?

No one would want to be among the first 10 - 20 killed, so he could have proceeded peacefully through the crowd.

Many shopkeepers had such guns in L. A. that day; they retreated to their store roofs and watched for looters - they had stores left the next day (and their lives). The shopkeepers without these guns had their shops looted and burned.

You're going beyond the scope of the second amendment here, there is nothing there about protection of personal, private property.

Multiply this several times everyday, around the country, and you see the need. Riots are rare, but an individual facing a group of 10 - 15 thugs on the street is all too common.

Really? Where do you live???

See, I live in a major US city, and in all my life, I've never faced that kind of threat. Ever.

I have a feeling that might be a slight exaggeration.

(oops - I see this has been posted before - but not adequately answered yet...)

So, just to be clear, are you saying that your reasonable response to my question about why a responsible gun owner needs assault weapons is just in case of a riot like those in LA following the Rodney King verdict?

-- A2SG, you did see the part where I asked for an answer in reasonable terms, right?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Adam Lanza had a Bushmaster AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle which used a 30 round magazine.

What does a responsible gun owner need one of these weapons for?

For militia duty of course.

Seems to me, then, that we need exactly those kinds of regulations, if we were to keep with the intent of the Amendment.

If you paraphrase the amendment it might say: "The weaponry the citizens possess is none of the government's business."

When the congress adopted the amendment the word 'State' was capitalized. Jefferson was Secretary of State and was charged with preparing the amendment and sending it to the states for ratification by each. He changed 'state' to lower case, and thus changed the meaning that the congress had envisioned, divorcing or separating it from the incorporated State, and thus the government itself. The amendment now protects the 'condition' or 'state of freedom' of the people, not the incorporated 'State'.

We have always considered that the right to bear arms was under the guardianship of our present government system and intended to protect our incorporated territories, the 'states'. Jefferson worded the amendment to be a natural right of a people regardless if they possessed a constitutional government or an incorporated territory.

If everything failed the people at large would freely possess the means to protect and defend themselves. Jefferson believed that if the 'state' failed a well-armed citizenry would quickly restore or maintain order by means of a militia who would assent to regulation and discipline.

This is the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

For militia duty of course.




If you paraphrase the amendment it might say: "The weaponry the citizens possess is none of the government's business."

When the congress adopted the amendment the word 'State' was capitalized. Jefferson was Secretary of State and was charged with preparing the amendment and sending it to the states for ratification by each. He changed 'state' to lower case, and thus changed the meaning that the congress had envisioned, divorcing or separating it from the incorporated State, and thus the government itself. The amendment now protects the 'condition' or 'state of freedom' of the people, not the incorporated 'State'.

We have always considered that the right to self-defense was connected to our present government system and incorporated territories. But if this is true those rights disappear if the 'state' fails. Jefferson worded the amendment to be a natural right of a people regardless if they possessed a constitutional government or an incorporated territory.

If everything failed the people at large would have the means to protect and defend themselves.

This is the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

QFT

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Should we ban shotguns too?

Gunman critically wounds student in California school - chicagotribune.com

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Should we ban shotguns too? This is why the idea that more gun control will stop crazy people from committing acts of violence that result in killing people is terrible misguided and ignores the facts that previous bans on assault weapons did absolutely nothing.

Gunman critically wounds student in California school - chicagotribune.com

 

[A2SG]

I like you. You're naive.

Thanks! I always love a conversation that starts with condescension!

The citizens of any country outnumber the government that rules over them. Because the government that rules them is populated by members of them.
When the Administrative branch of power over you has assault weapons, it is incumbent on the people they rule to have assault weapons also.

It's a matter of respecting the fire power and the potential.

Sorry, no. See, you seem to be one of those people I mentioned earlier, the ones who seem to overlook the specific wording of the Second Amendment:

"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."

The Armed Forces, aka the Army, et al, constitute a well regulated militia.

You can never say 'they' are not trying to take our guns from us.
Certainly someone in Great Britain said that in 1989. And now....

Um....you do know that Great Britain did not ratify the US Constitution, right? They have no second amendment, and no specific laws about gun ownership.

They also don't have anywhere near the number of deaths due to guns that we have, so....

Any government that you believe is empowered to give you your rights, believes itself entitled to limit them for your own good.

Um, the government doesn't "give" anyone any rights. You have read it, haven't you? I mean, you do know you have it backwards, right?

People think America is a free country. Why is that?
What is free here exactly?
We pay income taxes so that we're legally permitted to earn our living.
We pay property taxes so we're legally allowed to rest our heads.

Are we free?
Or are we simply living by the rules that let us think we're free to live while ruled.

Rules = civilization.

No rules = anarchy.

Your choice.

What do citizens need assault weapons for?
What do the citizens among us empowered above us need assault weapons for?

"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."

It's a matter of respect.

Indeed.

-- A2SG, but it's been so nice chatting with you......