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

[Darkhorse]

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?

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

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.

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?

Fortunately, I have lived in relatively safe areas - relatively. The worst place was Richmond - El Cerrito California. I wouldn't open my door at night unless I had my 9mm auto which holds 15 rounds in my back pocket.

My wife and I would hear machine-gun fire there at night. These wern't law-abiding gun owners following the liberal's laws. This was during the crack wars of the 1980s.

I have had to venture into downtown Richmond and Oakland (CA) at night, and have witnessed the thug gangs I speak of. Fortunately, I was in my car, not on foot, and could remove myself from the scene quickly.

As I say; riots are rare, criminal gangs are not. Have you ever been to Chicago?

Arson is a dangerous felony and a threat to life, so even in California, a person is legally justified in using deadly force to stop it's commission.
But that has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment; its purpose is to defend the populace from a tyranical government - which is why it's under attack by the present administration.

 

[A2SG]

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.

Hammers have uses beyond killing. Assault weapons do not.

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.

So why does a responsible gun owner need such a weapon?

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.

I never said it did.

I simply asked what responsible gun owners needed one for.

Is your answer because they like loud noises?

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're going beyond the second amdnement here. It says nothing about any of that.

I was hoping to move beyond the paranoia, though....

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!

Um, if you're talking about the "fast and furious" business, you may want to check your facts there. Specifically, the date it was implemented.

But that's not the subject here, so let's move on....

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.

You know what happens when you assume, right?

-- A2SG, you may want to review this thread to try and see if you can figure out where that "outrage" you refer to came from, because it wasn't me....

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

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



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.



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....



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?



Rules = civilization.

No rules = anarchy.

Your choice.



"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."



Indeed.

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

You are very wrong. A militia by definition is not a part of the US military.

http://www.ncmilitia.org/general_elements.html

The "unorganized" or reserve militia is a legal and lawful part of the armed forces of this nation. It is a military organization recognized by the Second Amendment of the Constitution; Title 10 Section 311 USC; The Dick Act of 1903; The National Defense Act of 1916; and affirmed by numerous court decisions.

There is no ambiguity, the "unorganized" citizens militia is not the National Guard or the state "select" militia under the governor, or part of the "organized" armed forces of the federal government. It is literally the entire body of the armed citizenry.​

 

[A2SG]

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

Who said I was making it my business? I just asked a question.

-- A2SG, do you need me to repeat it?

 

[A2SG]

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.

But they at least meet the requirements put forth in the second amendment. Individuals with guns do not. And it was the second amendment being discussed here, was it not?

But, that aside, self defense does not require assault weapons, so I again ask: what do responsible gun owners need assault weapons for?

-- A2SG, be nice to have an answer at some point here....

 

[A2SG]

Don't be silly.

Why not? One hypothetical's as good as another.

He was probably on crystal meth.

See what I mean?

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.

And if she had superpowers, no gun would have been needed.

Hypotheticals, am I right?

In the end, your example illustrates what I said earlier: self defense does not require assault weapons.

So why do responsible gun owners need them?

-- A2SG, again.....

 

[A2SG]

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

You haven't answered my question. All you've done is illustrate that self defense does not require assault weapons, and you've offered no other reason why a responsible gun owner needs assault weapons.

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?

Read that back to yourself again, see if you can see the flaw there.

-- A2SG, kinda hard to miss.....

 

[A2SG]

For militia duty of course.

And which well regulated militia was Adam Lanza a part of?

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

Hey, if you want to play that game, we can paraphrase it to say the right of citizens to possess super powers shall not be infringed.

Kinda like mad libs....

Let's stick to what it says, and not what it doesn't, shall we?

When the congress adopted the amendment the word 'State' was capitalized.

So were Militia and Arms.

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'.

And what do you glean from the fact that Militia is still capitalized? Or are you going to overlook that part, like so many do?

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.

Jefferson held it to be self-evident that all rights were endowed and unalienable.

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.

Do you have any other basis for that idea than your own assumptions? Words written by Jefferson to that specific point, for example?

Just curious. I see a lot of assumptions based on a lack of a capital letter here.

This is the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

So you believe. I simply note that your assumptions seem to be overlooking the well regulated militia part.

But, that aside, you still haven't answered my question: why does a responsible gun owner need an assault weapon?

-- A2SG, still comes down to that....

 

[A2SG]

Fortunately, I have lived in relatively safe areas - relatively. The worst place was Richmond - El Cerrito California. I wouldn't open my door at night unless I had my 9mm auto which holds 15 rounds in my back pocket.

My wife and I would hear machine-gun fire there at night. These wern't law-abiding gun owners following the liberal's laws. This was during the crack wars of the 1980s.

I have had to venture into downtown Richmond and Oakland (CA) at night, and have witnessed the thug gangs I speak of. Fortunately, I was in my car, not on foot, and could remove myself from the scene quickly.

As I say; riots are rare, criminal gangs are not. Have you ever been to Chicago?

Yup. Didn't see any gangs there.

I live in Boston. I even grew up in the projects. In all my life, I've never heard a gunshot that wasn't on television.

Ever.

Arson is a dangerous felony and a threat to life, so even in California, a person is legally justified in using deadly force to stop it's commission.
But that has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment; its purpose is to defend the populace from a tyranical government - which is why it's under attack by the present administration.

Have you ever read the Second Amendment? I ask, because it says nothing whatsoever about tyrannical governments.

-- A2SG, it does mention a well regulated militia by the way, just so you know.....

 

[A2SG]

You are very wrong. A militia by definition is not a part of the US military.

True. However, it is well regulated, so it comes closer to that definition than anything else I can think of.

The "unorganized" or reserve militia is a legal and lawful part of the armed forces of this nation. It is a military organization recognized by the Second Amendment of the Constitution; Title 10 Section 311 USC; The Dick Act of 1903; The National Defense Act of 1916; and affirmed by numerous court decisions.

There is no ambiguity, the "unorganized" citizens militia is not the National Guard or the state "select" militia under the governor, or part of the "organized" armed forces of the federal government. It is literally the entire body of the armed citizenry.

Is it well regulated? What are those regulations, and how are they enforced?

Just curious.

-- A2SG, because without that "well regulated" part, it doesn't seem to qualify under the second amendment.....

 

[KWCrazy]

Perhaps we should ask the man who co-wrote the Second Amendment what He meant by a "well regulated militia.":
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426).
"...to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

The Second Amendment was very obviously to keep a tyrannical government from enslaving the people. Many world leaders throughout history have decided that the population should not be armed. They include Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tze Tung, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro and other dictators. t's easier to enslave a disarmed populace.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
- Patrick Henry

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
– Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

“A free people ought to be armed.”
– George Washington

That is why the Constitution makes the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms one of the foundations of freedom. As to why I NEED a high capacity rifle, The answer is given above. Our founders didn't color happy ponies during recess. They revolted against tyranny, took up arms and killed the enemy. That's why we are free today. A free man doesn't only buy hat he needs, he buys what he wants. If I want three gun safes full of weapons, then you have no right to tell me I can't have them. If I want to go to a gun range and shoot 200 rounds, it doesn't impose on your freedom one bit whether I do it with a single shot rifle or with a belt fed machine gun.

I hope I never NEED a high capacity fully automatic weapon, but thankfully I live in a nation where I can have what I want and can afford so long as I am a responsible citizen. If you don't want one, don;t buy one. You have no right to tell me what I need or don't need, or what kind of firearm I can possess.

We are the land of freedom. If that bothers you, there are plenty of places where only criminals have guns. Move there if you want to be disarmed by the law, or simply disarm yourself. You can make your home a gun free zone. In fact, I think you should be proud of that fact and put a big sign in your yard so everyone knows that you believe a responsible citizen is a disarmed citizen.

Enjoy.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But, that aside, self defense does not require assault weapons, so I again ask: what do responsible gun owners need assault weapons for?

-- A2SG, be nice to have an answer at some point here....

Your questions have been answered. You just don't like the answers. In fact your questioning is more like an interrogation. All that's missing is a closed room and strong light.

Why don't you ask why the Swiss keep fully automatic assault weapons under their beds, and why they have among the lowest murder rates in the world. Shooting is a national sport in Switzerland, right up there with skiing. They take these uncased weapons into resturants, on buses and trains. All this from one of the most civilized peoples on earth (Yikes!)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And what do you glean from the fact that Militia is still capitalized? Or are you going to overlook that part, like so many do?

Jefferson 'uncapitalized' all those terms.

From Wikipedia:


Text
There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.
As passed by the Congress:

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.
​

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.[8]
​

Jefferson knew what he was doing, returning the power of the amendment to the people at large, without regard to any of the sovereign 'States" or of the 'Union' of such.

 

[Glas Ridire]

But they at least meet the requirements put forth in the second amendment. Individuals with guns do not. And it was the second amendment being discussed here, was it not?

I am sorry to inform you that your point has been overturned conclusively by the Supreme Court, whose function it is to interpret the laws of the land and make rulings which are binding.
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But, that aside, self defense does not require assault weapons, so I again ask: what do responsible gun owners need assault weapons for?

-- A2SG, be nice to have an answer at some point here....

Well, given that only one legally owned assault weapon has been used in one murder, (by a police officer against an informant specifically) in the last 68 years. . . it seems that the folks that tend to own them aren't a problem. People don't need cars that go over the speed limit either, but I am not seeing a lot of push to regulate those further. I'd say that there could well be a use for legally owned assault weapons, for ranchers along the southern border who have to contend with cartels using assault weapons sold to them by Eric Holder. Why should the land owner be at a disadvantage to the criminal gangs? Point being, can you identify another self defense weapon that has been used in as few crimes/ caused fewer deaths? Why TASERs have caused more deaths this year that legally owned assault weapons have in 68 years and it is mid-January! Tasers!

 

[cow451]

Break into my home tonight around 2 AM and find out. Just kidding. But, I don't recommend breaking into ANY home in Alabama. I been to the public gun ranges here and I've seen what people own. Things you normally only see in James Bond movies.

Come on, is it really that difficult a concept to understand? What did the militia do in the war that preceeded the writing of the US Constitution?

Look what happened in the LA riots back when Rodney King was beaten up on TV. The stores protected by owners standing on roofs with AR-15s and AK-47s were not attacked. Stores not protected were looted, smashed, and in some cases burned. I happened to be in LA and saw the smoke across the city myself.

Another case - tornadoes hit us in 2011. Hundreds of tornadoes. Our power goes out to half the state. Next day, 30 break ins, shootings, robberies. Next day after that, Sheriff authorizes "shoot on sight" if people come on your property after sunset. Guess how many breakins happend that night? How many people shot? ZERO. Why? Criminals knew we are well armed.

I have no problem with responsible people having registered firearms.

 

[DaisyDay]

Break into my home tonight around 2 AM and find out. Just kidding.

Those criminals just don't listen: al.com: Crime

 

[DuneSoldier]

But they at least meet the requirements put forth in the second amendment. Individuals with guns do not. And it was the second amendment being discussed here, was it not?

But, that aside, self defense does not require assault weapons, so I again ask: what do responsible gun owners need assault weapons for?

-- A2SG, be nice to have an answer at some point here....

"Assault Weapons" can be owned for the same reasons any other firearm can be owned.

Your question implies that the responsible gun owner should have to show a "need" for ownership. This is not true. You have also implied that the only purpose of "assault weapons" is the murder of human beings. If that is the case what are the 4 million+ "assault weapons" in the United States for? Few people pay for something they will never use. So they must be in use, but according to the FBI's statistics they make up a fraction of a fraction of all gun crime in the united states.

 

[sniperelite7]

Usually conservatives don't listen to context. Which is why i'm surprised that its the liberals this time around who have failed to view the 2nd amendment in its own context through the letters that have been written by the founders regarding it.

What use does a citizen have for an ar15? Seeing as it is the most popular sporting rifle in the US, why not ask a hunter, competition shooter, recreational shooter, or someone interested in keep their well being safe?

It makes an excellent varmint rifle, change the caliber and its a good game hunting rifle, its light and handy so its ideal for competition shooting, or accurate for long range competition, carbines are easier to handle than handguns in defensive situations and more importantly; will not over penetrate when actually used, and isn't as destructive as buckshot.

But of course none of these will matter to those brainwashed by the media. Citizens don't need em, so says the jerks who know next too nothing about firearms.

 

[Loudmouth]

Usually conservatives don't listen to context. Which is why i'm surprised that its the liberals this time around who have failed to view the 2nd amendment in its own context through the letters that have been written by the founders regarding it.

What use does a citizen have for an ar15? Seeing as it is the most popular sporting rifle in the US, why not ask a hunter, competition shooter, recreational shooter, or someone interested in keep their well being safe?

It makes an excellent varmint rifle, change the caliber and its a good game hunting rifle, its light and handy so its ideal for competition shooting, or accurate for long range competition, carbines are easier to handle than handguns in defensive situations and more importantly; will not over penetrate when actually used, and isn't as destructive as buckshot.

But of course none of these will matter to those brainwashed by the media. Citizens don't need em, so says the jerks who know next too nothing about firearms.

The people I know who own assault rifles have them because they enjoy shooting. That's it. No one I know uses an AR-15 for hunting deer or elk. No one I know carries their AR-15 to the bank with them in case someone tries to rob it, so personal protection doesn't make much sense. No one I know thinks that citizens will have to band together to fight the US Army any time soon. The one overriding reason that people own assault rifles is that they think it is fun to fire them. That's it. They think they are cool.

 

[cow451]

The people I know who own assault rifles have them because they enjoy shooting. That's it. No one I know uses an AR-15 for hunting deer or elk. No one I know carries their AR-15 to the bank with them in case someone tries to rob it, so personal protection doesn't make much sense. No one I know thinks that citizens will have to band together to fight the US Army any time soon. The one overriding reason that people own assault rifles is that they think it is fun to fire them. That's it. They think they are cool.