They're Coming...For Your Guns!!!

[Ordinary12]

I can respond to your question about why we need such powerful ,military grade weapons. The answer is very simple...in fact, I covered it in my initial post. We need those powerful weapons to defend ourselves from a tyranical government. The Second Amendment actually states that the citizens are responsible for maintaining a "Free 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."

We are the militia....not the National Guard or the different branches of the military. Posse Comitatus states that the military should never be used against the free citizens of America...but how are you going to enforce it? Through my faith in Christ and the most powerful weapons I can get my hands on!!! Don't get brain washed by the media who would have you think that every freedom fighter is a terrorist...the first terrorist in this country are now called the "Founding Fathers".

[reaper239]

My 82% comment was made in jest. I did not mean to disparage what you were saying about gun deaths, though the sites I've been visiting do break it down to the different degrees...I suppose for lack of a better term right now...

The second amendment is intended to create a militia against the British should they decide to come back. This was before the US had a military industrial complex and a standing army, navy, marine corp and air force.....especially the air force....if they had figured that out back then I'd be really impressed...

The idea that the citizenship of the US can even be as well armed as the government has become preposterous. If that's the case, we should have access to nuclear weapons and drones. That's why I'd say remove military grade weapons from the populace. And the same thing would apply that everyone has been talking about in terms of people finding a way...if the need arises, I'm sure those who would overthrow a tyrannical US government could get those weapons.

that's just plain rediculous, the idea that a preamble to an ammendment should limit or alter the content of the emmendment itself has been disregarded in court as long as the second ammendment debate has raged. the preamble states a reason why the people have the right, but it doesn't have to be the only reason, or even be true, and it doesn't change who has the right. the second ammendment has nothing to do with militias, to suggest otherwise is just plain silly. btw, the constitution for the federal government (including the bill of rights) was ratified in 1788, but the us army was established by the confederacy in 1784.

the armament of citizens is only preposterous to those who are not astute students of history, and the tyrannies of the past, and the atrocities perpetrated by those tyrannies.

at this point i'm taking myself out of this discussion. i feel a little too emotional right now to continue, but i may be able to at a later time.

[scbubba]

My 82% comment was made in jest. I did not mean to disparage what you were saying about gun deaths, though the sites I've been visiting do break it down to the different degrees...I suppose for lack of a better term right now...

The second amendment is intended to create a militia against the British should they decide to come back. This was before the US had a military industrial complex and a standing army, navy, marine corp and air force.....especially the air force....if they had figured that out back then I'd be really impressed...

The idea that the citizenship of the US can even be as well armed as the government has become preposterous. If that's the case, we should have access to nuclear weapons and drones. That's why I'd say remove military grade weapons from the populace. And the same thing would apply that everyone has been talking about in terms of people finding a way...if the need arises, I'm sure those who would overthrow a tyrannical US government could get those weapons.

I'm not attacking you, Nik. I got the joke about the 82% but did want to clarify my statement on the stats too. I really do appreciate you coming on here with a differing view. It allows for real conversation and exchange of ideas.

I see the 2nd amendment as a protection against tyrannical government and not just the British. The folks that drafted that amendment knew what a tyrannical government was and could do and knew it needed to protect against in in various forms. Not just with checks and balances in the governing bodies.

Regarding being armed as well as the military - I assume your comment about nukes, etc was meant in hyperbolic fashion and not serious. I may be wrong. But my thought on this is that an assault rifle or sniper rifle is not the same as a nuke or a drone or several other weapon systems that are very complicated to operate and very illegal for private ownership.

So, what should be legal and what should not for a private citizen to own? How hard should it be for someone to own it legally? These are hard questions to deal with and warrant more than a knee jerk reaction following a tragedy. It also needs people that do not work for organizations on one extreme or the other to have conversations about underlying things. Unfortunately, our society has moved a long way from that sort of thing in the recent past. And that's a damn shame....

My personal belief is to err on the side of the freedoms established in the US. Allow responsible gun ownership and enforce the laws we have (gun or otherwise). Use the system of governance we have in place to make changes, if needed, without overturning the basic civil liberties and freedoms we have built on.

[nikvoodoo]

How can you choose to ignore preamble to the 2nd amendment? If it has nothing to do with militias, then why is it even there? Why isn't the entire text "Americans have the right to bear arms." Can we just ignore other parts of the Bill of Rights, or is this just a special case?

If you want to say we're going to turn into a tyranny, then you don't trust the same founders who crafted and designed our checked and balanced government. Explain to me how a tyrannical overlord takes over this country...seriously. How does a tyrannical dictator come to power where there is no way to remove that person from power other than a coup? We have other procedures and tools given to us other than an armed conflict.

No point in continuing myself. I'm not overly emotional, but as with every discussion of this nature: I'm not changing your mind, you're not changing mine.

scbubba: I just wanted to make sure the joke came through. Yes. Nukes and drones are hyperbole. I do not expect anyone to be allowed to have such materials. I'd also expect our government to not go all crazy loco and use any of those weapons on its citizenry.

Liberals survived 8 years of Bush thinking he was going to bring around the end of days. Conservatives are now living through 8 years of Obama thinking the same thing. Maybe by 2016 a real centrist party will emerge and we can all join hands together and think the centrist is going to bring about the end of days and we can finally hold productive conversations again.

[scbubba]

How can you choose to ignore preamble to the 2nd amendment? If it has nothing to do with militias, then why is it even there? Why isn't the entire text "Americans have the right to bear arms." Can we just ignore other parts of the Bill of Rights, or is this just a special case?

If you want to say we're going to turn into a tyranny, then you don't trust the same founders who crafted and designed our checked and balanced government. Explain to me how a tyrannical overlord takes over this country...seriously. How does a tyrannical dictator come to power where there is no way to remove that person from power other than a coup? We have other procedures and tools given to us other than an armed conflict.

My personal opinion - it's the safety net. Anything made by man can fail or be overcome by man. Consider it the last line of checks and balances, if you will.

No point in continuing myself. I'm not overly emotional, but as with every discussion of this nature: I'm not changing your mind, you're not changing mine.

That is the truth of it. It's an interesting discussion but in the end we usually walk away holding the same opinions/beliefs we started with. It matters more how we conduct ourselves in these discussions, IMO.

scbubba: I just wanted to make sure the joke came through. Yes. Nukes and drones are hyperbole. I do not expect anyone to be allowed to have such materials. I'd also expect our government to not go all crazy loco and use any of those weapons on its citizenry.

Liberals survived 8 years of Bush thinking he was going to bring around the end of days. Conservatives are now living through 8 years of Obama thinking the same thing. Maybe by 2016 a real centrist party will emerge and we can all join hands together and think the centrist is going to bring about the end of days and we can finally hold productive conversations again.

I'm with you on something centrist. The 2 party system is pulling America apart. I'd prefer at least 3 major parties but really would like 5 or 6 more minor platforms/parties which would better represent the diversity of the population and not the "well, I hate this group the least" or "I guess I'm going to be a single issue voter and those guys are closer to me on that one issue" types of voting we have had for many years now....

Thanks again, Nik, for the discussion.

[nikvoodoo]

I mean if you look at the past election and the Tea Party candidates ran on their own platform and left the moderate republican base alone, the make up of congress would look much much different. I'd prefer have 4 some odd parties. For the movements we know now: Far Left represented by OWS, Democrats take the middle left, Republicans cover the middle right, Tea Party covers the Far Right. I'd prefer that.

[Kc]

*walks into thread... *reads title... *turns and walks out.

[reaper239]

I mean if you look at the past election and the Tea Party candidates ran on their own platform and left the moderate republican base alone, the make up of congress would look much much different. I'd prefer have 4 some odd parties. For the movements we know now: Far Left represented by OWS, Democrats take the middle left, Republicans cover the middle right, Tea Party covers the Far Right. I'd prefer that.

i'm going to be honest with you, i think we should set it up like the first few presidencies, the second place becomes the vice president. i think this would balance out between right and left. even if you don't agree on all policies, you'd have to set aside your differences and have enough respect for each other to get things done. it would force a balance starting at the very top. think how things might have been different if gore had been vp during the bush years. it would contribute to national unity, instead of having the nation split nearly in half.

[yarri]

*walks into thread... *reads title... *turns and walks out.

That made my entire day.

[nikvoodoo]

*walks into thread... *reads title... *turns and walks out.

Wayland you pansy!!! Sheesh!!

i'm going to be honest with you, i think we should set it up like the first few presidencies, the second place becomes the vice president. i think this would balance out between right and left. even if you don't agree on all policies, you'd have to set aside your differences and have enough respect for each other to get things done. it would force a balance starting at the very top. think how things might have been different if gore had been vp during the bush years. it would contribute to national unity, instead of having the nation split nearly in half.

That would be an interesting dynamic to return to I have to say. I think the White House would need a steel cage installed on the grounds