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

[A2SG]

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)

So, if everyone is in a militia, where are the regulations, and how are they enforced? And, since being "well regulated" is an integral part of being in these militias of yours, why do groups that represent gun owners spend millions opposing every attempt to regulate guns and gun ownership?

The Second Amendment was very obviously to keep a tyrannical government from enslaving the people.

Obviously....well, except for the part where it was never mentioned in it.

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.

Again, no one is trying to disarm the population of the US, so can we please at least try to keep the paranoia to a bare minimum here?

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.

Without assault weapons. So, obviously, they are not required.

So, not only have you NOT answered my question, you've actually illustrated that responsible individual gun owners do not need assault weapons.

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.

By that logic, everyone should have free access to tanks, ground to air missiles and nuclear weapons.

Are you sure you want to continue with that argument?

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.

Then you may want to note that I have never said or intimated any such thing.

I simply asked a question: why does a responsible gun owner need assault weapons. To which, your answer seems to be that you don't need them, but you still want them anyway.

We are the land of freedom. If that bothers you....

I'm going to stop this diatribe right here, since I stopped reading it there. I never said anything like that, so it doesn't apply.

-- A2SG, dunno who you think you're talking to there, maybe whoever it is will see it and respond.....

 

[A2SG]

Your questions have been answered. You just don't like the answers.

Sorry, that is not correct. I've seen several examples that prove what I said, that self defense does not require assault weapons (some lady in Atlanta, for example). So no, I have not seen any reason why a responsible gun owner needs assault weapons.

In fact your questioning is more like an interrogation. All that's missing is a closed room and strong light.

Well...those, and any means whatsoever to compel you to answer. If you don't like my unanswered question, you're free to ignore me, and I can't do a thing about it. Even if I wanted to.

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!)

I'm not Swiss.

-- A2SG, Irish mostly, with a little German on my grandmother's side....

 

[A2SG]

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.

What about the well regulated part? That's still in there.

Where are the regulations responsible gun owners are required to follow as part of a militia, and how are they enforced?

-- A2SG, still curious about those....

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Sorry, that is not correct. I've seen several examples that prove what I said, that self defense does not require assault weapons (some lady in Atlanta, for example). So no, I have not seen any reason why a responsible gun owner needs assault weapons.



Well...those, and any means whatsoever to compel you to answer. If you don't like my unanswered question, you're free to ignore me, and I can't do a thing about it. Even if I wanted to.



I'm not Swiss.

-- A2SG, Irish mostly, with a little German on my grandmother's side....

Your question has been answered. Several times. No use to keep asking if you won't listen.

 

[Lilly Owl]

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

You're welcome. I figured since you initiated the tenor you'd appreciate replies in equal measure.

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.

Ah, and you sound like one of those people who think the second amendment only applies to empowering the Administrative branch.
Which would be the branch of government under which the military and police serve.
You would be wrong about that.

History of the U.S. Militia
When asked what the Militia was, George Mason, one of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, said, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers." Yet we also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all able- bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males" of different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.

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.

You should learn something about Great Britain before making declarations.

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

And? What does that mean to us?

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?

You're really far too ignorant about even the basics of government, the Constitution, and gun rights to continue with the attitude.

Rules = civilization.

No rules = anarchy.

Your choice.

Way to miss the point!

"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."

Refer to link above.

Indeed.

Certainly. When you get some, get back to me. Um, but first get an education on the subject matter so that you sound intelligent about the topic under discussion. Your sarcasm and snide remarks, which warrant condescension, don't distract from the fact you are sorely unprepared to be in this thread and actually know what we're talking about.

 

[A2SG]

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

Not overturned so much as interpreted. And someone else claimed that a "militia" contains everyone.

My point remains: the "well regulated" part was not deleted from the amendment, so responsible gun owners are still subject to regulations on guns and gun ownership. Which does make one wonder why groups like the NRA who purport to represent gun owners are always trying to fight every single attempt to regulate guns and gun ownership.

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.

Well, there was one recent case in the news that suggests otherwise.

But, my point isn't about whether or not responsible gun owners are, in fact, responsible. I'm sure most are. My point is simply to wonder why a responsible gun owner needs assault weapons.

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.

Cars have uses besides killing. Assault weapons do not.

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?

I'm a little unclear here....why are these cartels using assault weapons on ranchers? Does this actually happen, or is it another hypothetical situation. For some reason, in this thread, hypotheticals have become very popular.

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!

Even if that statistic were true (I tend to doubt it, but it's irrelevant so no matter), it doesn't change the fact that if someone comes at you with a taser, assault weapons are not your only possible defense.

-- A2SG, still no reason why a responsible gun owner needs assault weapons....

 

[A2SG]

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

I know. I'm asking why they need them.

Your question implies that the responsible gun owner should have to show a "need" for ownership. This is not true.

I know. But there used to be a ban on assault weapons, and that did not cause riots or the reduction of our very society into anarchy, so I can't figure out why we can't reinstate it.

You have also implied that the only purpose of "assault weapons" is the murder of human beings.

Nope. I just said "killing." I never specified the circumstances nor the target.

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.

Good point. Which leads us right back to the very question I've been asking and getting no answer for: why does a responsible gun owner need assault weapons?

-- A2SG, I still don't know....

 

[DuneSoldier]

Not overturned so much as interpreted. And someone else claimed that a "militia" contains everyone.

My point remains: the "well regulated" part was not deleted from the amendment, so responsible gun owners are still subject to regulations on guns and gun ownership. Which does make one wonder why groups like the NRA who purport to represent gun owners are always trying to fight every single attempt to regulate guns and gun ownership.



Well, there was one recent case in the news that suggests otherwise.

But, my point isn't about whether or not responsible gun owners are, in fact, responsible. I'm sure most are. My point is simply to wonder why a responsible gun owner needs assault weapons.



Cars have uses besides killing. Assault weapons do not.



I'm a little unclear here....why are these cartels using assault weapons on ranchers? Does this actually happen, or is it another hypothetical situation. For some reason, in this thread, hypotheticals have become very popular.



Even if that statistic were true (I tend to doubt it, but it's irrelevant so no matter), it doesn't change the fact that if someone comes at you with a taser, assault weapons are not your only possible defense.

-- A2SG, still no reason why a responsible gun owner needs assault weapons....

Why are you addressing the question as a "need"? There are very few things in life I "need". Guns aren't part of those things. Neither are cars, novels or newspapers.

But I enjoy owning and using all of those things.

 

[A2SG]

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.

That's the closest I've come to an answer. There is no need, they just want 'em.

-- A2SG, good to know....

 

[A2SG]

If i liked sitting in my kitchen with it and licking the buttstock it wouldn't be anyone's concern. I don't ask you what you do with your stuff.

For the record, no one else asked either.

-- A2SG, still, coulda been worse....

 

[DuneSoldier]

I know. I'm asking why they need them.

Can't speak for them. I don't need one. I enjoy shooting firearms and it is more economical to own your own rather than rent.

I know. But there used to be a ban on assault weapons, and that did not cause riots or the reduction of our very society into anarchy, so I can't figure out why we can't reinstate it.

I'll be completely honest. Reinstating it will negatively affect my hobby for no net benefit to society that I can see. That is my reason for opposing it. As these weapons aren't used in crime more often than "blunt" instruments I see no benefit to restricting them.

Nope. I just said "killing." I never specified the circumstances nor the target.

I don't shoot to kill things. I don't think I ever could. I enjoy putting holes in paper though. That's quite a bit of fun.

Good point. Which leads us right back to the very question I've been asking and getting no answer for: why does a responsible gun owner need assault weapons?

-- A2SG, I still don't know....

Answered above.

 

[A2SG]

People need no reason it is our right to own assault weapons. Why should law abiding citizens have to explain why we execute our constitutional rights?

You're mistaken. There is no constitutional protection for owning assault weapons. They can be banned, and have been.

Your right to bear arms can be limited and regulated. The part about being well regulated is even specifically mentioned in the second amendment. It's a part that responsible gun owners should have no problem with.

-- A2SG, theoretically, anyway....

 

[A2SG]

Your question has been answered. Several times. No use to keep asking if you won't listen.

The only answer has been because they want them. No one has said why they need them.

-- A2SG, as to why that bears repeating, well, it should be self-evident....

 

[A2SG]

You're welcome. I figured since you initiated the tenor you'd appreciate replies in equal measure.

Ah, and you sound like one of those people who think the second amendment only applies to empowering the Administrative branch.

No, it seems clear that it was an attempt to keep gun owners responsible by making the right to bear arms subject to regulation and organization of some kind, ie into militias, if not a standing army.

It says nothing about any branch of government.

Which would be the branch of government under which the military and police serve.

Um.....no.

The military, granted, is under the command of the executive branch (and paid for by the legislative branch), but police forces tend to be under the purview of cities and municipalities.

You would be wrong about that.

George Mason's opinions aside, I only said that the military and police forces are closer to well regulated militias than private gun owners who are not part of any organization, thus are not well regulated. That statement stands on its own pretty well, I'd say. The only regulation on gun owners comes from the government itself, and there is nothing in the second amendment that precludes them from doing that.

You should learn something about Great Britain before making declarations.

Actualy, I'm pretty confident in my statement. I'm certain the UK did not ratify the US Constitution.

And? What does that mean to us?

What do you think it means?

You're really far too ignorant about even the basics of government, the Constitution, and gun rights to continue with the attitude.

Really? Shall I quote Thomas Jefferson for you?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

The US government does not grant us our rights, we are endowed with them, and we, the people created the government to secure these rights for ourselves.

What part do you think I got wrong here?

Way to miss the point!

No, I think I got it. You were talking about rules and freedom, I was simply making the argument that you can't have one without the other.

Certainly. When you get some, get back to me. Um, but first get an education on the subject matter so that you sound intelligent about the topic under discussion. Your sarcasm and snide remarks, which warrant condescension, don't distract from the fact you are sorely unprepared to be in this thread and actually know what we're talking about.

Aw, you're gonna turn my head with such pretty words!

My statements stand. If you disagree, feel free to address them. If you prefer to level ad homs instead, that's your call.

-- A2SG, have fun!

 

[A2SG]

Why are you addressing the question as a "need"? There are very few things in life I "need". Guns aren't part of those things. Neither are cars, novels or newspapers.

But I enjoy owning and using all of those things.

So, are you saying that responsible gun owners don't NEED assault weapons?

As to why I'm asking if it's a need or not, well, I think that's pretty clear that responsible gun owners don't NEED assault weapons, and given the fact that a previous ban on assault weapons did not lead to anarchy or a unilateral ban on all weapons of any kind, I see no reason to not reinstate that ban.

-- A2SG, since cars, novels and newspapers are not specifically created for the express purpose of killing, I'm not sure why we need to ban them, but anyone wants to put forth that argument, that's up to them.....

 

[DuneSoldier]

So, are you saying that responsible gun owners don't NEED assault weapons?

As to why I'm asking if it's a need or not, well, I think that's pretty clear that responsible gun owners don't NEED assault weapons, and given the fact that a previous ban on assault weapons did not lead to anarchy or a unilateral ban on all weapons of any kind, I see no reason to not reinstate that ban.

-- A2SG, since cars, novels and newspapers are not specifically created for the express purpose of killing, I'm not sure why we need to ban them, but anyone wants to put forth that argument, that's up to them.....

Why should we reinstate the ban? Based on the numbers there doesn't appear to be a problem with assault rifles in society. So... why should they be banned?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You're mistaken. There is no constitutional protection for owning assault weapons. They can be banned, and have been.

Your right to bear arms can be limited and regulated. The part about being well regulated is even specifically mentioned in the second amendment. It's a part that responsible gun owners should have no problem with.

-- A2SG, theoretically, anyway....

The 'well regulated' part isn't addressing weaponry but general discipline. The banning or regulating of any weapon is unconstitutional regardless of whether a ban has already been imposed. However if an informed citizenry accepts that regulating certain weapons is beneficial then they have the right to do so, but there is no mandate in the 2nd amendment to allow regulation without the consent of the people.

If new regulations are successfully imposed it will because of an ignorant and apathetic citizenry.

 

[A2SG]

Why should we reinstate the ban?

To keep those kinds of weapons out of the hands of people who should not have them. Adam Lanza for one.

Based on the numbers there doesn't appear to be a problem with assault rifles in society. So... why should they be banned?

Because they are a problem, and there is no sufficient need for them to justify not banning them as we have done in the past.

Hey, I'm all for allowing assault weapons for those who can justify a need for one. For use in a well regulated militia, for example. But I just don't see an overriding need for them, sufficient to justify the sheer number of them out there and the potential for misuse like in Newtown.

-- A2SG, and yeah, I come to this from the perspective of a father rather than a gun owner....so sue me....

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Really? Shall I quote Thomas Jefferson for you?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

The US government does not grant us our rights, we are endowed with them, and we, the people created the government to secure these rights for ourselves.

What part do you think I got wrong here?

All you've proven is that you can quote from the constitution (the devil can quote scripture too). Our government is formed to protect our right to freely bear arms, not to infringe upon them.

Let's rehearse the amendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Examine the amendment closely. Do you see any weapon being excepted or prohibited. I went over it with a magnifying glass and was unable to detect either.

 

[A2SG]

The 'well regulated' part isn't addressing weaponry but general discipline. The banning or regulating of any weapon is unconstitutional regardless of whether a ban has already been imposed.

That is not correct. You cannot own a tank, an aircraft carrier, a surface to air missile or a nuclear weapon, and that limitation is not unconstitutional.

However if an informed citizenry accepts that regulating certain weapons is beneficial then they have the right to do so, but there is no mandate in the 2nd amendment to allow regulation without the consent of the people.

I'd say the part where "well regulated militia" is mentioned suggests it's not only allowed, but mandated.

If new regulations are successfully imposed it will because of an ignorant and apathetic citizenry.

Or one concerned about each other's lives and well being.

-- A2SG, you know, to-may-to, to-mah-to....