Join the fight

[dom w. forte]

Assault weapons

As said before we have the right to bear arms. Was this written when we had a cycle rate of a round every 30 seconds or more with musket loaders not assault weapons. As I said I am in favor of the second amendment but I am not in favor of having assault weapons in a home where obviously junior has gotten access and has gone to school to prove a point. It is a little easier to storm and individual who has a bolt or lever feed semi-automatic if that need occurs but with doubled up clips on a modified assault rifle that is now automatic I don't think that was the intention of the 1791 amendment. in an assault weapon even the single shot repetition rate is devastating in its own right.

I love the point that we need weapons to keep the military in check. If there was a military coup we could not possibly hold back the military. First you have to ask is our military that brain washed as a volunteer force. To me this point was valid in a small town but I doubt that the volunteer military would be called up against domestic enemies unless there was a need as provide in the oaths our servicemen take.

the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.[3]

[edit] Text of the Oath


I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

The second amendment isnt just a right to bear arms, but to form a militia , so the type of gun isnt relevent.
Also the constitution states we have a right to Life, Liberty,and The Pursuit of Happiness, I prefer Wakeboard Boats over fishing boats and dont feel they enfringe on anybodys freedom, I also might prefer a rifle over a revolver and dont feel this effects anybodys freedom , so why does anybody think its ok to enfringe on anybodys freedom that doesnt enfringe on theres.

[Nobody]

The second amendment isnt just a right to bear arms, but to form a militia , so the type of gun isnt relevent.
Also the constitution states we have a right to Life, Liberty,and The Pursuit of Happiness, I prefer Wakeboard Boats over fishing boats and dont feel they enfringe on anybodys freedom, I also might prefer a rifle over a revolver and dont feel this effects anybodys freedom , so why does anybody think its ok to enfringe on anybodys freedom that doesnt enfringe on theres.

The US Constitution has 27 amendments but has been amended 18 times, and it's going to be changed again, so get over it! With the understanding that you were probably born in the colonial era when militias served a purpose for the greater good, the 21st century requires changes to advance society.

FYI....Wakeboard boats can be fishing boats too.

[shawndoggy]

Also the constitution states we have a right to Life, Liberty,and The Pursuit of Happiness...

No, it doesn't.

[Nobody]

No, it doesn't.

X2!!

Nor are we innocent until proven guilty.

[IDBoating]

As said before we have the right to bear arms. Was this written when we had a cycle rate of a round every 30 seconds or more with musket loaders...

...which was also what the "military" had at the time. The idea of the Second Amendment was to maintain parity between the military and civilians. So, your point actually argues for MORE powerful firearms in the hands of civilians rather than less since the military now has substantially more powerful weapons than when the 2nd was originally written. Oops!

If there was a military coup we could not possibly hold back the military.

As I said above:

The difference is in numbers. Let's say 1/3rd of the population owns firearms. That's ~100M citizens with "lesser" weapons. How big an army could they field - two million? Three million? The citizens would still outnumber them 30-50 to one.

"But they have big guns, nukes, biological/chemical weapons, etc." Yes, but those are not useful in a tactical ground war. The goal of most wars is generally one of two things: 1) Control of resources (land), or 2) Control of people. Weapons of mass destruction leave the earth scorched and the people dead. "Winning" doesn't mean much if the land is useless and there's nobody to rule over. So now we're down to traditional weaponry, and while they would still have fullautos and grenades and such, a 30-50:1 ratio combined with the homefield advantage is really tough to overcome. Look at Vietnam, the Soviets and (later) the USA in Afghanistan, etc... it's REALLY HARD to outright "win" against an entrenched local population even if you have superior weaponry. Give the locals a 30-50:1 numeric advantage and it's going to be a long, hard slog.

I have an older coworker who grew up in the Bronx. Back before the USSR dissolved there was a discussion at work about an "invasion" by Soviet soldiers. This guy just started laughing, and said "Just let 'em try to take the Bronx. They won't last 30 minutes." Repeat that in every hometown across America, where the locals know all the hidey-holes, have righteous indignation behind them, and outnumber the invaders by 30:1 or better, and how do you think it's going to work out?

Bottom line: The Second Amendment still matters and its intent would still work, even against a modern military. But we'd better keep our semiautos.

[Ewok]

Assault weapons
As I said I am in favor of the second amendment but I am not in favor of having assault weapons in a home where obviously junior has gotten access and has gone to school to prove a point. It is a little easier to storm and individual who has a bolt or lever feed semi-automatic if that need occurs but with doubled up clips on a modified assault rifle that is now automatic I don't think that was the intention of the 1791 amendment. in an assault weapon even the single shot repetition rate is devastating in its own right.

I love the point that we need weapons to keep the military in check. If there was a military coup we could not possibly hold back the military. First you have to ask is our military that brain washed as a volunteer force. To me this point was valid in a small town but I doubt that the volunteer military would be called up against domestic enemies unless there was a need as provide in the oaths our servicemen take.

the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.[3]

[edit] Text of the Oath


I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

First, if your kid needs to take your rifle or handgun to school or anywhere to settle a score then you've failed miserably as a parent. You've failed to secure your guns from unintended use and failed to give your kid skills to cope with challenging situations, or failed to get appropriate mental help for your kid. I have read in the last few years about the parent that let their kid play some video game for several days straight and the kid died. There was also a kid who killed his mom or grandma or something like that becuse she made him turn off his video games. Kids today have many different pressures than we did growing up, they can find a video how-to on just about anything, they can communicate in new ways where parents have no idea what's going on in the kids lives. And the media is everywhere and so quick to report on tragedies everywhere that troubled kids have a plethora of sources of bad ideas to help them cope with their challenges.

I also know that oath very well, I have take it several times and given it many more times. The second amendment is not to protect the people from the military, it's to protect from the government. The battle of Athens was a group of citizens, many were veterans but not active duty, who fought injustice in a small town. If the government ever overstepped its bounds and ordered the military to attack citizens, the mitary should not follow those orders and would probably side with the citizens if it came to that point. Should we hang our hat on that idea and disarm the civilians? Absolutely not. The citizens and government of Athens were comparably armed the government found themselves outnumbered, and were promptly removed from their positions with open elections.

Crazy people can do a grave amount of damage with any type of gun, or car, or homemade explosive like we saw in OKC. Banning guns is not the answer, it's not even a band-aid, parents taking responsibility and holding their kids responsible is, in my opinion, a good place to start. Know what is going on in your kids lives and know when they need help. It will help them as they get older to cope with a scary and challenging world. I believe, from a mental standpoint, this is one of the most challenging periods in our history for the growth and stability of our kids, and they need our help, they need both their parents to help them develop to be productive members of society, not the government.

[Ewok]

Again, that's my opinion. If we the people really want to ban guns, we the people can amend the constitution, and there is a process in place to do that, it has happened 17 times since the bill of rights was added to and ratified with the constitution. The wrong way is to chip away at the second amendment with piecimeal legislation banning some guns and some clips.

[Nobody]

Again, that's my opinion. If we the people really want to ban guns, we the people can amend the constitution, and there is a process in place to do that, it has happened 17 times since the bill of rights was added to and ratified with the constitution. The wrong way is to chip away at the second amendment with piecimeal legislation banning some guns and some clips.

Many here see gun limitations as a violation against their 2nd amendment instead of looking at the purpose and usefulness of specific weapons in "modern society". We've outlawed many things that have posed a risk to to our health and society when it's proven they cause more harm than good. If we really cared about our society as much as we do our family, we would make compromises for the greater good. Instead, we're back to the same ole selfish, self centered few that cry like little children when their candy gets taken away.

[Ewok]

What about the first amendment? So we should have guns taken away and STFU too? There is a constitutional process for repealing amendments. If the people wanted guns banned or "assault weapons" banned they should elect officials who will use the proper process to amend the constitution to allow some types of guns and ban military style weapons for civilian use. Anyone want that? Anyone see that happening anytime soon? I'm sure there is a minority of citizens who want that but not an overwhelming majority required to influence the members of congress to make it happen.

All I'm saying is take care of your kids, help your fellow citizens when they need it, don't make it easy for crazy people to get YOUR guns, keep them secure when not in use, and if you really want guns banned, just say so and vote for people that will introduce an amendment to repeal the second amendment and ban guns.

[laserfish]

Nobody, you make a great point and that is specifically the reason that I am so attached to my guns, and freedom of relegion, and freedom of speech so you and I can type these words without fear of arrest by the government. When we start giving up liberties and rights because some crazy somewhere did something, where will it end. I have read multiple places that all of these kids parents were liberal. I am not surprised. Non-paticipatory parents are a huge problem in this nation. Kids, if left to their own devices, will not be normal and the garbage in will be garbage out. As an ex teacher and my wife is still a teacher, we see it all the time. Is that 100 percent, no, but it is an almost universal indicator. My kids grew up with guns around them from birth. They started going hunting with me as soon as they were able. My son killed his first deer at 9. Both my son and daughter are very successful today. Both have an incredible work ethic and would never think of taking from the government, thus, taking someone else's hard earned money. Every Christmas of my life, our family gathers at a house where there are at least 30 or more guns in the house. NEVER has a gun been drawn in anger. Why, crime is in the heart of the person, not the inanimate object. Deal with the evil first.
Freedom and Liberty mean you have to put up with some things you might not like. I do it all the time. You don't like guns, fine, don't have them. Don't think the government will take your freedoms, just look around. They are doing every day a little at a time.

[robert theisen]

Nobody, you make a great point and that is specifically the reason that I am so attached to my guns, and freedom of relegion, and freedom of speech so you and I can type these words without fear of arrest by the government. When we start giving up liberties and rights because some crazy somewhere did something, where will it end. I have read multiple places that all of these kids parents were liberal. I am not surprised. Non-paticipatory parents are a huge problem in this nation. Kids, if left to their own devices, will not be normal and the garbage in will be garbage out. As an ex teacher and my wife is still a teacher, we see it all the time. Is that 100 percent, no, but it is an almost universal indicator. My kids grew up with guns around them from birth. They started going hunting with me as soon as they were able. My son killed his first deer at 9. Both my son and daughter are very successful today. Both have an incredible work ethic and would never think of taking from the government, thus, taking someone else's hard earned money. Every Christmas of my life, our family gathers at a house where there are at least 30 or more guns in the house. NEVER has a gun been drawn in anger. Why, crime is in the heart of the person, not the inanimate object. Deal with the evil first.
Freedom and Liberty mean you have to put up with some things you might not like. I do it all the time. You don't like guns, fine, don't have them. Don't think the government will take your freedoms, just look around. They are doing every day a little at a time.

That's why my wife and i are going to retire in Texas.People there think logically and have a good work ethic as well as pride in a job well done. If the government gets too big for their britches then Texas will be one of the first to succeed.What more could an old patriotic man ask for.

[M&M]

Unintended Consequences by John Ross.

20ci Missouri Ozarks. Read Unintended Consequences by John Ross. A great book I could not put down. This guy takes the bull by the horn. M&M

[Nobody]

20ci Missouri Ozarks. Read Unintended Consequences by John Ross. A great book I could not put down. This guy takes the bull by the horn. M&M

John Ross is a Nobody

[chpthril]

Many here see gun limitations as a violation against their 2nd amendment instead of looking at the purpose and usefulness of specific weapons in "modern society". We've outlawed many things that have posed a risk to to our health and society when it's proven they cause more harm than good. If we really cared about our society as much as we do our family, we would make compromises for the greater good. Instead, we're back to the same ole selfish, self centered few that cry like little children when their candy gets taken away.

So what compromises where made last week when Obama signed 23 executive orders related to gun control? Also, why was there no gun rights groups on Biteme's gun violence board? To use a phrase so favored by the left, that just didnt seem fair. It seems to me that the Obama admin was only concerned with working out gun violence reduction plan, with only like minded groups.....those against guns. Sounds kinda selfish and self centered to me

[Nobody]

So what compromises where made last week when Obama signed 23 executive orders related to gun control? Also, why was there no gun rights groups on Biteme's gun violence board? To use a phrase so favored by the left, that just didnt seem fair. It seems to me that the Obama admin was only concerned with working out gun violence reduction plan, with only like minded groups.....those against guns. Sounds kinda selfish and self centered to me

The R's are only concerned with the welfare of the wealthy, special interest groups.

We DO NOT need high power assault weapons in the hands of the public. End of story. When will I hear compassion for the victims families, friends and loved ones?