quote Originally posted by User00013170: Really it shouldn't be a states right issue either. They agreed to the Federal constitution when they signed on to the union. Regardless of ones viewpoint on the 2nd, everyone agrees the states are unable to restrict speech due to the Constitutional protections ( or other rights ), why do they feel it magically gives it to the states right to restrict the 2nd? State's rights start where the Federal's ends.

Actually, that's backwards. Powers not specifically granted to the Feds by the Constitution are retained by the States.

The Feds have pushed the Commerce Clause way too far to gain additional control over the States.

quote Originally posted by Boondawg: Reminds me of some SyFi move I seen where one astronaut shockingly said to another; "Uhhhhh, why do you have a gun in space".

Armageddon...

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: Actually, that's backwards. Powers not specifically granted to the Feds by the Constitution are retained by the States. .

I agree, except that this is clearly stated in the constitution as a protected right, so the states should not be able to usurp it at their whim. If that was the case, then the states can remove your right to free-speech if the felt like it. That was not the intent of the founders. The intent was that all states would honor those rights.

Im very pro gun. I can bend a little to compromise. I could live with 5 cartridge magazines, background checks that include a mental check from a psychologist (paid for by applicant), and mandatory longer jail terms for those that use a gun in ANY crime.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Im very pro gun. I can bend a little to compromise. I could live with 5 cartridge magazines, background checks that include a mental check from a psychologist (paid for by applicant), and mandatory longer jail terms for those that use a gun in ANY crime.

No. And I mean HELL NO. We have been compromising all along, and this is where we are.

'Compromise'? What will the other side 'give up' to get you to 'compromise'? Hint: NOTHING.

So, you are willing to submit to a 'psychological' check (obviously would have to be from a government approved psychiatrist), at your own expense, to exercise a fundamental RIGHT?

5 round mags? Why? Will our military and police also have to limit themselves? The 2nd Amendment isn't about 'hunting' or 'self defense'. It's about the ability of We the People to be the final check and balance on Government (which is why they want to eliminate it so badly).

And 'longer jail time'? There's already that stuff on the books in most areas, and yet the system is a revolving door to most repeat offenders. I'd rather that they bring back swift public hangings for heinous crimes (rape, murder). At least then there wouldn't be repeat offenders. And not 20 years after the fact. Give the quick trial, quick appeal(s), and be done with it in a few months TOPS.

quote Originally posted by dsnover: No. And I mean HELL NO. We have been compromising all along, and this is where we are. 'Compromise'? What will the other side 'give up' to get you to 'compromise'? Hint: NOTHING. So, you are willing to submit to a 'psychological' check (obviously would have to be from a government approved psychiatrist), at your own expense, to exercise a fundamental RIGHT? 5 round mags? Why? Will our military and police also have to limit themselves? The 2nd Amendment isn't about 'hunting' or 'self defense'. It's about the ability of We the People to be the final check and balance on Government (which is why they want to eliminate it so badly). And 'longer jail time'? There's already that stuff on the books in most areas, and yet the system is a revolving door to most repeat offenders. I'd rather that they bring back swift public hangings for heinous crimes (rape, murder). At least then there wouldn't be repeat offenders. And not 20 years after the fact. Give the quick trial, quick appeal(s), and be done with it in a few months TOPS.

You say this as if you're going to have a choice in it. Weapons have evolved WAY past where the creators of the constitution could have conceived. You're not allowed to have a nuke, and you have no say in that either. Once it's decided that there's a threshhold on what is considered a reasonable weapon for defense, you will have no say in it. As far as the whole "protect us from the government" thing, does anyone really think we have the means to defend against our government that DOES have nukes, drones, tanks, missles, etc? It's all gotten to a fairly moot point IMO. We can posture all we want, but that battle was already lost and it hasn't even happened yet.

quote You're not allowed to have a nuke, and you have no say in that either.

Actually that statement is incorrect. You are allowed to have a nuclear device, you aren't allowed to have any of the explosives to detonate it or the fissable material that creates the huge mushroom cloud. Our forefathers intended for us to be able to defend ourselves from our government, especially if they would not protect our rights guaranteed in the constitution. They also intended that we may be able to do this by any means, including whatever weapons that may get developed in the future.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Im very pro gun. I can bend a little to compromise. I could live with 5 cartridge magazines, background checks that include a mental check from a psychologist (paid for by applicant), and mandatory longer jail terms for those that use a gun in ANY crime.

I only agree with the last. And i would extend it to a permanent stay in club-fed.

The other 2, those are not compromises, those are infringements.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 01-10-2013).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Actually that statement is incorrect. You are allowed to have a nuclear device, you aren't allowed to have any of the explosives to detonate it or the fissable material that creates the huge mushroom cloud. Our forefathers intended for us to be able to defend ourselves from our government, especially if they would not protect our rights guaranteed in the constitution. They also intended that we may be able to do this by any means, including whatever weapons that may get developed in the future.

You can't say what they intended any more than I can. You weren't there and you don't have a time machine (if you do I need a favor ). When I say nuke I thought it would be fairly easy to understand I meant a nuclear weapon. Getting into symantics doesn't make sense unless you actually thought I meant something else. We DON'T have the ability to have the weapons the government has, so again it's a moot point on what our rights SHOULD be.

quote Originally posted by mptighe: You say this as if you're going to have a choice in it. Weapons have evolved WAY past where the creators of the constitution could have conceived. You're not allowed to have a nuke, and you have no say in that either. Once it's decided that there's a threshhold on what is considered a reasonable weapon for defense, you will have no say in it. As far as the whole "protect us from the government" thing, does anyone really think we have the means to defend against our government that DOES have nukes, drones, tanks, missles, etc? It's all gotten to a fairly moot point IMO. We can posture all we want, but that battle was already lost and it hasn't even happened yet.

I dont agree. The evolution of small arms is irrelevant as the British opression repelled from America had the same exact weapon systems as the insurgents. And just as we have seen in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, etc is that a superior occupying force is not fought "head to head" eg tank vs tank, plane vs plane. It is fought by a mobile footsoldier. We dont need grenade launchers, or shoulder fired missiles, or anything like that.

There is no "battle lost." Nukes? We wont even use them on other people, let alone OUR soil. Military and Police support will be constantly undermined there will ALWAYS be underlying support for their own people, even if they are fighting them.

Tanks, Missiles, etc sounds great but let me explain something. Every single important piece of counter-terrorism/insurgency technology we have has been leaked, analysed, stolen, or debriefed in detail in Wired Magazine, TIME, or anything else. These are things that make insurgency difficult, not impossible. They have increased survivability for U.S. Servicemembers, but they sure have not "won" any conflicts for us.

Also consider our withdrawl from Afghanistan. Financial. Just as when the Russians left, not able to afford more Soldiers, Tanks, Planes, etc. Our Country is without money right now, do you think the economy will climb or fall if there is any form of insurgency? How quickly do you think Nations who hate the U.S. Government begin to provide material support to insurgents?
My Government fears this. I know that because I work for them. An American insurgency is a fight that our Government CANNOT win. This is why they want to take away our firearms. Our majority is without resolve right now, life is too comfortable. The harder is it to fight back against an opressive Government, the longer it will take to begin.

[This message has been edited by CommanderKeen (edited 01-10-2013).]

quote Originally posted by CommanderKeen: I dont agree. The evolution of small arms is irrelevant as the British opression repelled from America had the same exact weapon systems as the insurgents. And just as we have seen in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia, etc is that a superior occupying force is not fought "head to head" eg tank vs tank, plane vs plane. It is fought by a mobile footsoldier. We dont need grenade launchers, or shoulder fired missiles, or anything like that. There is no "battle lost." Nukes? We wont even use them on other people, let alone OUR soil. Military and Police support will be constantly undermined there will ALWAYS be underlying support for their own people, even if they are fighting them. Tanks, Missiles, etc sounds great but let me explain something. Every single important piece of counter-terrorism/insurgency technology we have has been leaked, analysed, stolen, or debriefed in detail in Wired Magazine, TIME, or anything else. These are things that make insurgency difficult, not impossible. They have increased survivability for U.S. Servicemembers, but they sure have not "won" any conflicts for us. Also consider our withdrawl from Afghanistan. Financial. Just as when the Russians left, not able to afford more Soldiers, Tanks, Planes, etc. Our Country is without money right now, do you think the economy will climb or fall if there is any form of insurgency? How quickly do you think Nations who hate the U.S. Government begin to provide material support to insurgents? My Government fears this. I know that because I work for them. An American insurgency is a fight that our Government CANNOT win. This is why they want to take away our firearms. Our majority is without resolve right now, life is too comfortable. The harder is it to fight back against an opressive Government, the longer it will take to begin.

No offense but trying to take my words into a scenario that my words weren't addressing isn't proving them wrong. When it comes to what type of conflict would arise, I have no idea, it would depend on what happened. I was talking about whether the right to bear arms ACTUALLY would be enough for us to have sufficient means to defend against our government. It's not, if the government ever unleashed all of theri firepower against us (for any reason), we might as well be fighting with sticks. The scenarios don't matter that much if you're looking at it in those terms. Will this happen? I would say no, but I'm not one of the paranoid conspiracy theorists clinging to my gun and hording bullets for when "they" come knocking on my door to enslave me.

[This message has been edited by mptighe (edited 01-10-2013).]

quote Originally posted by mptighe: You say this as if you're going to have a choice in it. Weapons have evolved WAY past where the creators of the constitution could have conceived. You're not allowed to have a nuke, and you have no say in that either. Once it's decided that there's a threshhold on what is considered a reasonable weapon for defense, you will have no say in it. As far as the whole "protect us from the government" thing, does anyone really think we have the means to defend against our government that DOES have nukes, drones, tanks, missles, etc? It's all gotten to a fairly moot point IMO. We can posture all we want, but that battle was already lost and it hasn't even happened yet.

Shall we apply the same logic to 'Freedom of Speech' and 'Freedom of the Press'? After all, the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned the Internet. Communications have evolved WAY past where the creators of the constitution could have conceived.

And yes, we DO have a choice.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Actually that statement is incorrect. You are allowed to have a nuclear device, you aren't allowed to have any of the explosives to detonate it or the fissable material that creates the huge mushroom cloud. Our forefathers intended for us to be able to defend ourselves from our government, especially if they would not protect our rights guaranteed in the constitution. They also intended that we may be able to do this by any means, including whatever weapons that may get developed in the future.

I dont think that is very accurate. If you have some evidence of personal nukes please post it. Im sure, with enough money for a proper facility, properly regulated engineers, proper liscensing you could get something similar going but.....why? Why nuke anything. Whats the point of laying 50-100 years of waste on the land youre trying to free?

Also, you would have an easier time buying or building explosive devices, those you can quickly buy/build/register with a single form, as long as you have an inspected explosives storage area built. But its cost prohibitive, and to be honest an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is wayyyyy more lethal than a frag grenade, or even a HEDP from a grenade launcher.

quote Originally posted by dsnover: Shall we apply the same logic to 'Freedom of Speech' and 'Freedom of the Press'? After all, the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned the Internet. Communications have evolved WAY past where the creators of the constitution could have conceived. And yes, we DO have a choice.

We could play that too, would they have allowed the paparazzi to stalk people under "freedom of the press", or allowed verbal hate crime types of abuse / assault under "free speech"? I don't think we would know regardless of opinion. They didn't even provide for equal rights of women or minorities, so why is everyone making them out to be such visionaries, and not accepting their faults?

quote Originally posted by dsnover: The 2nd Amendment isn't about 'hunting' or 'self defense'. It's about the ability of We the People to be the final check and balance on Government (which is why they want to eliminate it so badly).

Ahh.. I couldn't of said it better!

quote Originally posted by mptighe: Why is everyone making them out to be such visionaries, and not accepting their faults?

Because they were visionaries. And i know i have more than once stated they weren't perfect. No one is.

You do realize... that these "tanks, airplanes, and rockets" are utilized by our American military. As a veteran I can tell you this, hell would have froze over before I would have done ANYTHING like we speak of. Half of our military will instantly fight each other if any of this comes into place. If you think 1 million soldiers will follow blindly follow orders like that, you are wrong. Something like this would instantaneously start the nastiest revolution we could imagine.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Because they were visionaries. And i know i have more than once stated they weren't perfect. No one is.

I don't think they were visionaries. I think that they were human beings with just as many problems or imperfections as the rest of us.

I think the founding Fathers had two things going for them. They were given a chance at a clean slate to build on for a Nation and they had the rare wisdom to look at history to see what things they needed to establish that would prevent future generations of their countrymen from being opressed. They did pretty darn well, and I wouldn't want to raise my children anywhere else.

[This message has been edited by CommanderKeen (edited 01-10-2013).]

quote Originally posted by mptighe: We could play that too, would they have allowed the paparazzi to stalk people under "freedom of the press", or allowed verbal hate crime types of abuse / assault under "free speech"? I don't think we would know regardless of opinion. They didn't even provide for equal rights of women or minorities, so why is everyone making them out to be such visionaries, and not accepting their faults?

Westboro Baptist Church is about as much an example of 'hate speech' that I can think of, and they are protected under the first amendment. As they should be. I don't subscribe to the notion that just because I don't like what someone says, that laws should be passed to silence them.

As to the rights of women and minorities, I'll leave it at this: The US Constitution, as adopted in 1789, left the boundaries of suffrage undefined, and therefore up to the individual states. It was also gender and race neutral in pretty much all aspects, thus, these issues were not shortcomings in the US Constitution, rather, shortcomings in how each state affected those rights.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Im very pro gun. I can bend a little to compromise. I could live with 5 cartridge magazines, background checks that include a mental check from a psychologist (paid for by applicant), and mandatory longer jail terms for those that use a gun in ANY crime.

That is not bending a little, that is bending over and supplying your rapist with lube and a hearty thank you..

quote Originally posted by dsnover: 5 round mags? Why? Will our military and police also have to limit themselves? The 2nd Amendment isn't about 'hunting' or 'self defense'. It's about the ability of We the People to be the final check and balance on Government (which is why they want to eliminate it so badly).

Well, I read it and it does not say anything about being a final check and balance on the government. It does speak about a well regulated militia, but I never saw any words to the effect of "We need these guns just in case we need to overthrow the government". Could you show me where I am wrong?

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Well, I read it and it does not say anything about being a final check and balance on the government. It does speak about a well regulated militia, but I never saw any words to the effect of "We need these guns just in case we need to overthrow the government". Could you show me where I am wrong?

Clarification of intent is available in the founders papers.

I am amused by the occasional military person or police officer who speaks up in favor of gun control

well - of course. if a 2nd amendment scenario was to occur - guess who "we the people" are gonna be shooting at....

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: if a 2nd amendment scenario was to occur - guess who "we the people" are gonna be shooting at....

I think it will be far more complex than that.. And i hope it never happens, but history shows that it will, and its just a matter of time.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Clarification of intent is available in the founders papers.

It should have been part of the ammendment or constitution, not an unpublished document. If we want to claim something as being a constitutional right, should we at least not see it in the document we are citing? In other words, if it was so dang important, why not include it in the actual ammendment?

And if it is not published and we have to look at those opinions to try and determine original intent, does that not also mean that we leave the entire constitution up for modern interpretation? *That nasty old living document argument some use...*

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 01-10-2013).]

The real truth is that the likeliness of the American government trying to outlaw all guns, in essence eliminating the second amendment so they can eliminate the first amendment (a popular conspiracy theory), is as probable as them waging outright war on the American people. So, let's stow all the "they wouldn't risk using their weapons on us" stuff shall we? Them nuking us is just as likely as them going door to door to try to take our guns. I think it's funny that people argue someone else's question as fiction because it interrupts their fictional scenario. This is why I see O/T as amusing yet frustrating at the same time.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: It should have been part of the ammendment or constitution, not an unpublished document. If we want to claim something as being a constitutional right, should we at least not see it in the document we are citing? In other words, if it was so dang important, why not include it in the actual ammendment? And if it is not published and we have to look at those opinions to try and determine original intent, does that not also mean that we leave the entire constitution up for modern interpretation? *That nasty old living document argument some use...*

The Constitution is quite clear on what it says. I only suggested alternative documents for the intent behind it since i thought that is what you were asking. You don't need to provide pages of intent for an amendment for it to be clearly written and followed.

Regardless of anyone's agreement or disagreement with the Constitution and its contents, understanding what our founders intent was isn't a bad thing..

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 01-10-2013).]

Compromise is when both sides give and take something. I can live with my suggestions, then it would be time for them to tell me their concessions too. Its true the police and courts dont enforce anything correctly. I get in more trouble with a permit and a perfectly legal gun than a 2 time convicted drug dealer caught carrying a gun without any kind of permit. I post a $4000 bond and go to court 3 times and have to pay a fine and lose the weapon because an officer SAYS I didnt tell him I had a permit fast enough. The drug dealer goes to jail and spends $150 and is home before the next shift starts.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Compromise is when both sides give and take something. .

Which is a fatal flaw in thinking in this case. When the other side uses your comprise as a means to their end, by forcing you to compromise again and again until there is nothing left.. It wasn't really a compromise in the first place. it was a concession.

They are not playing by the same rules.

After reading this long thread of lots of bickering I have yet to see any in between case where the law might have been written with the mindset that the militia, or military, is made up of everyday people. Cops, off duty, out of the city they work in, just like u and me, but at the drop of a hat might need to go somewhere and not have the time to go to the doghouse to grab their stuff so they take it home. Military, I can speak from experience here, consider this...

You have a 19D ( Cavalry Scout) who is now on stateside orders, title 10, not 32, long story, this scout is hopping around from place to place in a training position teaching noobs to the Army how to properly conduct MOUT operations and is forced to take his weapons and TA50 with him to five locations. Now mind you the military has to be cheap, they can afford to supply the soldier 5 sets of gear but they are cheap. Does it make sense that you would have the soldier bouncing around from Knox, to Lost in the Woods, to Springfield, to McCoy back to Bliss and once in a while Relaxin' Jackson, and expect him to make the journey to Jackson from one of the other locations every week to grab gear? NO! Also consider if that was the case, in travel, the soldier would have his gear with him regardless. Now while the Army cheaped out, they do have on file the serial numbers from the assigned weapons and only I use them. I'm responsible for damage or anything else that may happen if they get lost or stolen. There is good and bad. Instead, the soldier, by order of brigade command, is authorized to take his stuff with him in his travels and including home. Now consider the fact that off pay grade and not on duty, I'm just the same as everyone else, a normal civilian.

Think about it. Our rights are for everyone that is able to mentally and physically own a firearm. Done!

Also, do you really think that criminals really give a flying foo foo about the law. They are looking to break it anyway with whatever bad deed they want to come up with. If you rob a liquor store with a knife, is it any worse than a gun if you don't pull the trigger? Robbery still took place. Done! If the owner of the store has a weapon, he can defend himself, he might not have a good weapon (like a EAA M88A piece of crap) but at least he has options. Is a .45 Kimber Custom Pro Carry worse than a Colt 6940? Ups and downs to both, one can be hidden and has awesome stopping power, the other has great range but not easy to hide. Oh, capacity u ask? Um, who here has a 9mm Glock with full capacity Glock 18 mags? Mags that also slide into your Kel Tec sub 2000. Exactly! Nuff said.

quote Originally posted by all4u: After reading this long thread of lots of bickering I have yet to see any in between case where the law might have been written with the mindset that the militia, or military, is made up of everyday people. .

That is because its understood the militia is made up of able bodied citizens. Or at least rational people know it.

However, the military and militia are not really the same. One is made up of professionals under governmental control, the other, by the citizens and for the citizens. They may work together for a common cause and fight beside each other, but they are different animals.

quote Also, do you really think that criminals really give a flying foo foo about the law.

Gun control/ban isn't about crime. Thats just the front that is used to get support. So arguing with logic from that angle is just a waste of energy. They dont care.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 01-10-2013).]

quote Originally posted by mptighe: Weapons have evolved WAY past where the creators of the constitution could have conceived.

quote Originally posted by mptighe: You can't say what they intended any more than I can. You weren't there and you don't have a time machine (if you do I need a favor ).

quote Originally posted by mptighe: I'd bet my life that they didn't envision nuclear bombs, stealth fighter planes, or laser guided missles.

Flip flop much man?
Here is the Cliff notes of what I am reading from you.

"The founders didn't mean that."
"I have no idea what the founders meant, and neither do you."
"I'm certain that the founders meant ______."

Seriously.

Brad

quote Originally posted by mptighe: You can't say what they intended any more than I can. You weren't there and you don't have a time machine (if you do I need a favor ).

I missed that one ... We do know what our founders intended as thankfully they wrote volumes on their intentions. No time machine needed.. Don't even need money to buy them, or have to drive to the library, since their papers are not copyrighted and easily downloaded.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: I am amused by the occasional military person or police officer who speaks up in favor of gun control well - of course. if a 2nd amendment scenario was to occur - guess who "we the people" are gonna be shooting at....

You?

quote Originally posted by Fats: Flip flop much man? Here is the Cliff notes of what I am reading from you. "The founders didn't mean that." "I have no idea what the founders meant, and neither do you." "I'm certain that the founders meant ______." Seriously. Brad

Not really, considering that the first airplane hadn't been invented yet, it's pretty safe to say the "forefathers" didn't conceive of these kinds of things when they penned the constitution. That's not a flip flop. You can't say they intended this to include something that neither existed or had even been thought of at the time. I don't know their full intentions, never said I did. I will say though that they couldn't possibly have foreseen many of the modern day advancements. You're reading your interpretation into what I said, but there are differences between saying I bet they didn't conceive something and saying I bet the intended something. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that their intnetions were based on the awareness of the day, and that they may have reworded things had they known how things would progress.

[This message has been edited by mptighe (edited 01-10-2013).]

quote Originally posted by mptighe: Not really, considering that the first airplane hadn't been invented yet, it's pretty safe to say the "forefathers" didn't conceive of these kinds of things when they penned the constitution.

They watched weaponry advance even in their life time and knew how it advanced over the ages. They had cannons and explosives. They knew about poisons. Swords, knives, etc. They knew it would only get more deadly as that is how mankind works. They were not idiots and knew exactly what they were doing.