The second amendment is on the chopping block

onelongsong

know1 wrote:

The right to bear arms ended a long time ago.

The argument is now the right to bear handguns and rifles....which is meaningless in my opinion.

i legally bear arms and carry conceald weapons so i don't know what you're talking about.

in US v Miller; the supreme court decided that the second amendment states that a citizen is allowed ALL WEAPONS THAT WOULD BE USED BY A SOLDIER.
since organized crime is the biggest contributor to organizations against the second amendment; they may be opening a can of worms if US v Miller is cited and current laws ordered thrown out.

http://www.trollcave.com/2nd_Amendment.html

know1

onelongsong wrote:

i legally bear arms and carry conceald weapons so i don't know what you're talking about.

in US v Miller; the supreme court decided that the second amendment states that a citizen is allowed ALL WEAPONS THAT WOULD BE USED BY A SOLDIER.
since organized crime is the biggest contributor to organizations against the second amendment; they may be opening a can of worms if US v Miller is cited and current laws ordered thrown out.

http://www.trollcave.com/2nd_Amendment.html

So you can own missiles, bombs and nuclear weapons?

Face it, the spirit of the law was that average citizens could have weapons that would theoretically put them on par with the armies of the day. We simply can't own weapons that do that anymore.

know1

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

I hear what you're saying, it is a watering down, but how many of the average "pop a cap" street criminals outside of cartel level drug dealers are packing uzi's and ak-47's?

It's not about that. The 2nd amendment was about protection from militaries and armies.

Derrick

the difference between 1936 Germany and 2007 USA is that 2007 USA has a national problem with gun-related homicides. 1936 Germany didn't have such an issue.

Derrick

know1 wrote:

It's not about that. The 2nd amendment was about protection from militaries and armies.

True, but look at how well that's gone. The current administration has quite literally raped it's people. :-)

onelongsong

Derrick wrote:

the difference between 1936 Germany and 2007 USA is that 2007 USA has a national problem with gun-related homicides. 1936 Germany didn't have such an issue.

germany disarmed the public so they couldn't resist when the government sent millions to concentration camps and gas chambers. an armed society wouldn't allow that.

onelongsong

know1 wrote:

So you can own missiles, bombs and nuclear weapons?

Face it, the spirit of the law was that average citizens could have weapons that would theoretically put them on par with the armies of the day. We simply can't own weapons that do that anymore.

Few would argue that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own personal nuclear weapons, but there is really nothing in the 2nd Amendment allowing restrictions on future technological developments in arms. The 1st Amendment is not limited to 18th century printing technology, or 18th century religions.

http://www.trollcave.com/2nd_Amendment.html

know1

Derrick wrote:

the difference between 1936 Germany and 2007 USA is that 2007 USA has a national problem with gun-related homicides. 1936 Germany didn't have such an issue.

There's a lot more of a difference than just that.

know1

onelongsong wrote:

Few would argue that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own personal nuclear weapons, but there is really nothing in the 2nd Amendment allowing restrictions on future technological developments in arms. The 1st Amendment is not limited to 18th century printing technology, or 18th century religions.

http://www.trollcave.com/2nd_Amendment.html

Believe what you want, but I believe you are fooling yourself.

know1

onelongsong wrote:

germany disarmed the public so they couldn't resist when the government sent millions to concentration camps and gas chambers. an armed society wouldn't allow that.

If we were armed with handguns, we couldn't stop it if the army we're facing has bombs, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc.

onelongsong

know1 wrote:

If we were armed with handguns, we couldn't stop it if the army we're facing has bombs, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc.

anyone that thinks the US would bomb its own cities has to be nuts. a rifle and handgun can match the military without problem. a handfull of insurgents keep our military at bay in iraq. we have 175 million gun owners. we've got the military out numbered at the start.

Cosmo

onelongsong wrote:

anyone that thinks the US would bomb its own cities has to be nuts. a rifle and handgun can match the military without problem. a handfull of insurgents keep our military at bay in iraq. we have 175 million gun owners. we've got the military out numbered at the start.

...
Worked out well for the Branch Davidians, didn't it?
...
what?...
...
Oh... really?
...
nevermind.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

know1 wrote:

It's not about that. The 2nd amendment was about protection from militaries and armies.

Put it in that perspective, yes I agree. Once could also argue that gun registration is a control feature to let govt know where areas of potential resistance may be encountered and/or are concentrated.

Let's face it, no criminal is going to register anything... especially an illegal firearm.

SilverSeed

Obviously this topic is seriously complex. But some of the arguments used here aren't the best. Just because guns exist in our country is not an excuse to keep them legal. Arguing that some arbitrary bad guys with guns will take over if law abididng citizens turn over their weapons is based on speculation. Also it seems clear that the current path will lead to civilians with more and more powerful weapons. Dismissing claims that hand held nuclear devices or other serious weapons will be allowed in the future is naive.

The conditions that produced the second amendment no longer exist. Obviosuly current conditions lend creedence to either side of the argument.

With that said, the supreme court won't take this case. A progressive one might, but this one is too conservative. The best they could do is uphold the second amendment and at worst they would throw it out. It's a no-win for conservatives.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

SilverSeed wrote:

Obviously this topic is seriously complex. But some of the arguments used here aren't the best. Just because guns exist in our country is not an excuse to keep them legal. Arguing that some arbitrary bad guys with guns will take over if law abididng citizens turn over their weapons is based on speculation. Also it seems clear that the current path will lead to civilians with more and more powerful weapons. Dismissing claims that hand held nuclear devices or other serious weapons will be allowed in the future is naive.

The conditions that produced the second amendment no longer exist. Obviosuly current conditions lend creedence to either side of the argument.

With that said, the supreme court won't take this case. A progressive one might, but this one is too conservative. The best they could do is uphold the second amendment and at worst they would throw it out. It's a no-win for conservatives.

And what protects citizens from a rogue government?

Cosmo

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

And what protects citizens from a rogue government?

...
The citizen Army.
Do you think that the soldiers would carry out these orders? I don't. They are Americans, too.

SilverSeed

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

And what protects citizens from a rogue government?

First we'd hope our citizenry doesn't elect a government that would turn rogue. Ha.

Hard to say though. Obviously if the government's goal was simply to erradicate the opposition it would be easy. All of our shotguns/rifles/etc. would be fairly useless against the government's most powerful weaponry (which we aren't using in Iraq, so let's not have the 'Iraqis are doing it' comeback). Now if the goal were obediance, then it'd be a bit harder for them to nail us down if we had weapons.

That said, this is an extreme situation that would be hard for even the most radical thinkers to envision. What we're looking at is an increasingly armed society and the merits/disadvantages of that. Personally, I believe in strict gun control. I'm all for hunters and that lot, it's a hobby/sport that's been around for ages, aids in animal population control (where needed), and actually forwards environmental ideals (the real hunters who appreciate the nature they go into...). Clearly I can't win in this argument. There are too many people who believe owning a handgun is the only way for them to feel that they are protecting their family. As in most American issues, education seems to be the key.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

SilverSeed wrote:

First we'd hope our citizenry doesn't elect a government that would turn rogue. Ha.

Hard to say though. Obviously if the government's goal was simply to erradicate the opposition it would be easy. All of our shotguns/rifles/etc. would be fairly useless against the government's most powerful weaponry (which we aren't using in Iraq, so let's not have the 'Iraqis are doing it' comeback). Now if the goal were obediance, then it'd be a bit harder for them to nail us down if we had weapons.

That said, this is an extreme situation that would be hard for even the most radical thinkers to envision. What we're looking at is an increasingly armed society and the merits/disadvantages of that. Personally, I believe in strict gun control. I'm all for hunters and that lot, it's a hobby/sport that's been around for ages, aids in animal population control (where needed), and actually forwards environmental ideals (the real hunters who appreciate the nature they go into...). Clearly I can't win in this argument. There are too many people who believe owning a handgun is the only way for them to feel that they are protecting their family. As in most American issues, education seems to be the key.

I suppose at the stage it's pretty much the end of the world anyways.

I am forced to look at it practically. Ideally (for me) there would be no weapons of any kind and everyone lives peacefully and responsibly.

Maybe in another 1000 yrs it could be a reality if we don't blow ourselves up first.

Perhaps the squirrels will come back to rise up after the apocalypse and prove it 's actually possible. Man I think is going to have hard time with it.

It's a case of keeping up with the jones's. I'll be happy when govt has been reduced back to where it needs to be instead of an all encompassing cradle to grave father figure.

Yoyoyo

"Only the government controlled army and Blackwater should have guns"

I'm starting to see that the NRA is a good thing...

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Cosmo wrote:

...
The citizen Army.
Do you think that the soldiers would carry out these orders? I don't. They are Americans, too.

I'm beginning to wonder a bit about Blackwater. Perhaps another countries military would be used. All crazy thoughts.