Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[ConHog]

What makes you think I was addressing you specifically? I offered an article for consideration, nothing more. I have read your posts, commented on a few but nowhere have I indicated that YOU, personally, advocated removal of of the right to own guns.

well because this thread is about ME, or rather my thoughts on the second so I assumed your posts were on topic as they usually are.

[CSM]

well because this thread is about ME, or rather my thoughts on the second so I assumed your posts were on topic as they usually are.

I thought the article made of good point on why we, as citizens, have the right to bear arms. Period. Hunting, self defense, and protection against tyranny are all part of the discussion. We even have had a few posters who think the right to bear arms (and the 2d amendment) is unnecessary or even IS the problem. Obviously, it is my opinion that we do indeed have the right to bear arms; that right is NOT granted by the government but rather is an inherent human right. It is also my opinion that the type of arms that I have the right to bear should be equivalent to the threats I MAY encounter. If that means I need a hand grenade, I should be able to carry such. I would say that for normal, everyday carry, a pistol or even a military issue type long arm is appropriate. I will save my cannons, rockets and mortars for the "protection from tyranny" part.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I thought the article made of good point on why we, as citizens, have the right to bear arms. Period. Hunting, self defense, and protection against tyranny are all part of the discussion. We even have had a few posters who think the right to bear arms (and the 2d amendment) is unnecessary or even IS the problem. Obviously, it is my opinion that we do indeed have the right to bear arms; that right is NOT granted by the government but rather is an inherent human right. It is also my opinion that the type of arms that I have the right to bear should be equivalent to the threats I MAY encounter. If that means I need a hand grenade, I should be able to carry such. I would say that for normal, everyday carry, a pistol or even a military issue type long arm is appropriate. I will save my cannons, rockets and mortars for the "protection from tyranny" part.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CSM again.

Say, been looking for a good cannon cheap. Can you clue me in on your source??---Tyr

[CSM]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CSM again.

Say, been looking for a good cannon cheap. Can you clue me in on your source??---Tyr

When (and if) the day comes where we need cannons, I am sure the black market will provide them.

[ConHog]

I thought the article made of good point on why we, as citizens, have the right to bear arms. Period. Hunting, self defense, and protection against tyranny are all part of the discussion. We even have had a few posters who think the right to bear arms (and the 2d amendment) is unnecessary or even IS the problem. Obviously, it is my opinion that we do indeed have the right to bear arms; that right is NOT granted by the government but rather is an inherent human right. It is also my opinion that the type of arms that I have the right to bear should be equivalent to the threats I MAY encounter. If that means I need a hand grenade, I should be able to carry such. I would say that for normal, everyday carry, a pistol or even a military issue type long arm is appropriate. I will save my cannons, rockets and mortars for the "protection from tyranny" part.

we agree that is why I think the second should be repealed in favor of a new amendment which protects us further. The second says arms, not firearms, and under current jurisprudence we have let the government infringe. If we want the government to be able to say no to certain weapons , and I think we both agree that there are certain weapons that should not be in private hands, then the law that makes them illegal needs to be constitutional.

[CSM]

we agree that is why I think the second should be repealed in favor of a new amendment which protects us further. The second says arms, not firearms, and under current jurisprudence we have let the government infringe. If we want the government to be able to say no to certain weapons , and I think we both agree that there are certain weapons that should not be in private hands, then the law that makes them illegal needs to be constitutional.

I would say that philosphically we are in agreement. However, as I stated before, I do not trust the politicians to craft ANY amendments to the Constitution. I would rather see the Supreme Court step in and rule on those laws that infringe and ignore the 2d amendment already. Once that is established, then perhaps a more rational and sensible debate regarding the right to bear arms could be had. As it stands now, the fact that the government has already corrupted the 2d merely adds to the confusion.

As for which weapons do not belong in private hands, for me, it would be any crew served-weapon. That, at least, would be the starting point. Anything short of that (yes, including hand grenades) should be available to the individual. Crew served weapons only available through special licensing with strict requirements for training and safe keeping, etc. I would also add that the same laws would apply to ALL citizens ... INCLUDING government officials at ALL levels (local, state and federal). The ONLY exception would be the US military forces.

[ConHog]

I would say that philosphically we are in agreement. However, as I stated before, I do not trust the politicians to craft ANY amendments to the Constitution. I would rather see the Supreme Court step in and rule on those laws that infringe and ignore the 2d amendment already. Once that is established, then perhaps a more rational and sensible debate regarding the right to bear arms could be had. As it stands now, the fact that the government has already corrupted the 2d merely adds to the confusion.

As for which weapons do not belong in private hands, for me, it would be any crew served-weapon. That, at least, would be the starting point. Anything short of that (yes, including hand grenades) should be available to the individual. Crew served weapons only available through special licensing with strict requirements for training and safe keeping, etc. I would also add that the same laws would apply to ALL citizens ... INCLUDING government officials at ALL levels (local, state and federal). The ONLY exception would be the US military forces.

We do agree on many things. Including the fact that right now is definately not the right time to trust government to protect our rights. Which is why I advocate getting out in front of it, those boneheads are going to do something. Might as well mitigate the damage

And I'm not sure the judicial anymore than I trust the legislative.

Also, we're agreed on which weapons should be allowed, except perhaps hand grenades, I'd have to think about that one.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I would say that philosphically we are in agreement. However, as I stated before, I do not trust the politicians to craft ANY amendments to the Constitution. I would rather see the Supreme Court step in and rule on those laws that infringe and ignore the 2d amendment already. Once that is established, then perhaps a more rational and sensible debate regarding the right to bear arms could be had. As it stands now, the fact that the government has already corrupted the 2d merely adds to the confusion.

As for which weapons do not belong in private hands, for me, it would be any crew served-weapon. That, at least, would be the starting point. Anything short of that (yes, including hand grenades) should be available to the individual. Crew served weapons only available through special licensing with strict requirements for training and safe keeping, etc. I would also add that the same laws would apply to ALL citizens ... INCLUDING government officials at ALL levels (local, state and federal). The ONLY exception would be the US military forces.

The bolded statement above would get you blasted, savagely attacked and declared as deranged on most internet sites these days!
I doubt many here will agree on the grenade part. I fully understand your reasoning but in this current cultural and political climate that is almost like saying citizens should have a tank or A nuke. To the opposition that is...
Anything more powerful than a slingshot is on their list to confiscate IMHO.. -Tyr

[CSM]

We do agree on many things. Including the fact that right now is definately not the right time to trust government to protect our rights. Which is why I advocate getting out in front of it, those boneheads are going to do something. Might as well mitigate the damage

And I'm not sure the judicial anymore than I trust the legislative.

Also, we're agreed on which weapons should be allowed, except perhaps hand grenades, I'd have to think about that one.

LOL... I was being a bit facetious (but just a tiny bit) about the hand grenades. Anyone who has ever had to lug around a basic combat load knows what a PITA it is to have to carry a couple of grenades, claymores, etc.

[CSM]

The bolded statement above would get you blasted, savagely attacked and declared as deranged on most internet sites these days!
I doubt many here will agree on the grenade part. I fully understand your reasoning but in this current cultural and political climate that is almost like saying citizens should have a tank or A nuke. To the opposition that is...
Anything more powerful than a slingshot is on their list to confiscate IMHO.. -Tyr

Understood. I also understand what "the right to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed" means. I really do not care what internet sites advocate these days; if I did, my home would be filled with viagra, secret formulas for success, and a host of penis enlargers ... I also would have sent all my earnings (or at least that portion which the government did not steal from me) to the starving children of Lower Slobovia, the wounded whale foundation and the Save the Ice research foundation. If I heeded e-mails as well, I would be in direct communications with a host of disenfranchised, third world princes as well.

[Abbey Marie]

When (and if) the day comes where we need cannons, I am sure the black market will provide them.

I've always wanted a tank to drive around those Jersey traffic circles. Just think of the fun.

[ConHog]

LOL... I was being a bit facetious (but just a tiny bit) about the hand grenades. Anyone who has ever had to lug around a basic combat load knows what a PITA it is to have to carry a couple of grenades, claymores, etc.

True enough, but on the other hand just an M16 and a hundred rounds of ammo is a PITA to lug around to. That may be why I never do.

Honestly I have a concealed carry permit, and I rarely even carry my .40 S&W. I'm not about to lug around grenades LOL

Of course to be fair, I live in safe part of the country. We have to go to Little Rock once a month for my daughter to see a specialist, and yes I carry when we go down there, and we don't even go to the rough part of Little Rock.

I have a cousin who lives in Alameda, CA and he doesn't even walk out to his driveway without a gun. I don't know how he lives that way.

But he should have a choice to live there and be able to protect himself if that's what he wants.

[CSM]

True enough, but on the other hand just an M16 and a hundred rounds of ammo is a PITA to lug around to. That may be why I never do.

Honestly I have a concealed carry permit, and I rarely even carry my .40 S&W. I'm not about to lug around grenades LOL

Of course to be fair, I live in safe part of the country. We have to go to Little Rock once a month for my daughter to see a specialist, and yes I carry when we go down there, and we don't even go to the rough part of Little Rock.

I have a cousin who lives in Alameda, CA and he doesn't even walk out to his driveway without a gun. I don't know how he lives that way.

But he should have a choice to live there and be able to protect himself if that's what he wants.

There is a reason why the ammo basic load is what it is for a soldier. If some idiot had told me I had to carry around 100 rounds for my individual weapon, I would have told him (or her) to take a flying leap. It doesn't take long for an individual to figure out was is a reasonable amount of weaponry (and ammo) to have on hand for any given situation. Stuck in a foxhole by yourself, with an entire company of enemy soldiers sighting in on you, brings an overwhelming desire for as much ammo as you can get along with close air support, artillery and about 2000 more soldiers on your side. Walking down the street in my little tiny hometown, I figure one magazine would be enough.

[CSM]

I've always wanted a tank to drive around those Jersey traffic circles. Just think of the fun.

heh ... you realize that the gas mileage you get from any armored combat vehicle is just a tad shy of government standards, right? Besides, if you did that, so would everyone else in Jersey and, viola, same problems but with heavier vehicles!

[ConHog]

heh ... you realize that the gas mileage you get from any armored combat vehicle is just a tad shy of government standards, right? Besides, if you did that, so would everyone else in Jersey and, viola, same problems but with heavier vehicles!

No joke. I think some of those tanks measure their mileage in gallons per mile, rather than the other way around.