America: Right to Bear Arms

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

That was a great testimony.

Should a line be drawn? If so, where?

Clearly he provides adequate justification for the availability of the AR15, but wrt military weapons, what is enough?

Should the public be armed to a capacity to defend itself against it's own military?

I wish I had the answer!

Civilian versions of the type of weapons that are used in front line combat seems like a good idea. The military has bigger badder weapons, but with over 300 million people and 300 million guns, the shear number of potential armed people gives some weight to the "revolters"..

I think the big problem is the "line" will forever be pushed farther and farther towards disarmament as time passes. After every tragedy, there will be calls for more control and less weapons. The more time that passes since the last tyrannical government, the easier it is to think that it can't happen again.

[stringer]

http://asmdss.com/page/news.html/_/a...amendment.html

A letter from special forces to america 2nd amendment

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

The more time that passes since the last tyrannical government, the easier it is to think that it can't happen again.

And the closer we get to it happening.

[North of 53]

The right to bare arms is not about short sleeved shirts. The 2 amendment was put in place to make sure the people could defend themselves against a corrupt government or as they called it back then tyranny. If you use the 2scd amendment to guide you at to where to draw the line then there is no line. If the people need to be able to over power a corrupt government then they need access to the same arms as the tyrant they wish to over through. So unless you are ok with your neighbors missile silo. I don't suggest using the second amendment to justify why or why not a weapon should or should not be available to the public.
For me the line in the sand is that is the primary design of the weapon is to kill other human beings then its on the wrong side of the line. Home defense is an exception to that.
Having said that my son in law brought his SKS out to the farm and we had a blast in a gravel pit with it and it was just good clean fun. The SKS and the later AK47 are the biggest people killers there are so I will be the first to admit that drawing a line in the sand is not an easy thing to do.

Maybe that is why we have such stupid gun laws.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by North of 53

The right to bare arms is not about short sleeved shirts. The 2 amendment was put in place to make sure the people could defend themselves against a corrupt government or as they called it back then tyranny. If you use the 2scd amendment to guide you at to where to draw the line then there is no line. If the people need to be able to over power a corrupt government then they need access to the same arms as the tyrant they wish to over through. So unless you are ok with your neighbors missile silo. I don't suggest using the second amendment to justify why or why not a weapon should or should not be available to the public.
For me the line in the sand is that is the primary design of the weapon is to kill other human beings then its on the wrong side of the line. Home defense is an exception to that.
Having said that my son in law brought his SKS out to the farm and we had a blast in a gravel pit with it and it was just good clean fun. The SKS and the later AK47 are the biggest people killers there are so I will be the first to admit that drawing a line in the sand is not an easy thing to do.

Maybe that is why we have such stupid gun laws.

I find your post a little confusing. A weapon used to overthrow a tyrannical government will most likely be designed/capable of killing other human beings. You seem to understand why the 2nd amendment is needed but don't want to give the people the ability to exercise it..

[North of 53]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

I find your post a little confusing. A weapon used to overthrow a tyrannical government will most likely be designed/capable of killing other human beings. You seem to understand why the 2nd amendment is needed but don't want to give the people the ability to exercise it..

I never said the 2cnd amendment was needed I said I understood what its purpose was.I also never said it was not needed in some form. The question is it more important to have the right to own a gun built on a AR15 platform to protect you from tyranny or the right to not have the government monitoring your every move you make, to protect you from tyranny. The patriot act in the US does more to stop the people overthrowing a tyrant than any gun control law ever did. Having said that it is for the most part people that quote the 2cnd amendment as a reason for less gun control that also support the very right wing patriot act. The 2cnd amendment and the right to bare arms is just a side show so the real tyrants that the 2nd amendment was meant to protect us from can keep control.

So getting back to the original thread and IF you use the 2cnd amendment as your guide then there is no line in the sand. I for one am not that comfortable with my neighbor having a missile silo in his back yard and his finger on the button. So I don't use the 2nd amendment as justification of why or why not the public should have access to a particular kind of weapon.
There are many good reasons for the right to own guns, the 2nd amendment just is not one of them, even in the U.S.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by North of 53

I never said the 2cnd amendment was needed I said I understood what its purpose was.I also never said it was not needed in some form. The question is it more important to have the right to own a gun built on a AR15 platform to protect you from tyranny or the right to not have the government monitoring your every move you make, to protect you from tyranny. The patriot act in the US does more to stop the people overthrowing a tyrant than any gun control law ever did. Having said that it is for the most part people that quote the 2cnd amendment as a reason for less gun control that also support the very right wing patriot act. The 2cnd amendment and the right to bare arms is just a side show so the real tyrants that the 2nd amendment was meant to protect us from can keep control.

So getting back to the original thread and IF you use the 2cnd amendment as your guide then there is no line in the sand. I for one am not that comfortable with my neighbor having a missile silo in his back yard and his finger on the button. So I don't use the 2nd amendment as justification of why or why not the public should have access to a particular kind of weapon.
There are many good reasons for the right to own guns, the 2nd amendment just is not one of them, even in the U.S.

I get what you are saying. I think that the 2nd amendment is necessary though to keep things like the patriot act, in check. If they can sign an act like that into law with the 2nd amendment in place, what could/would they do without?? If the public feels like it is getting out of hand, they have the potential to resist in some way. Just that potential alone, without active resistance can go a long way towards stopping tyranny (or only allowing so much I guess)... unfortunately, even with the right in place, if too few people agree with it or exercise it, its purpose goes unserved.

A government should fear the population.. it keeps them honest. After they disarm their people to the point where they can't resist, they don't fear them and they are free to be dishonest..

You are right that there are many good reasons to own guns, but without a RIGHT to own them, they can be taken away.

[huntsfurfish]

Ive always wanted to fire a 16" naval gun nothing beats a one ton projectile.

[Mekanik]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

That was a great testimony.

Should a line be drawn? If so, where?

Clearly he provides adequate justification for the availability of the AR15, but wrt military weapons, what is enough?

Should the public be armed to a capacity to defend itself against it's own military?

According to the Founding Fathers of the United States, yes. Could they foresee this? No, they could not as they were still using single shot muskets and canons. Should the full weight of a military backed government come against its people, the citizens would be very happy to have those AR15s and "assault weapons".

All one really needs to do is look at the uprisings in the Libya and Egypt to see why this might work or how it might work, should you look at the Canadian military versus the firearms we allow ourselves to own and use.

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

I wish I had the answer!
The more time that passes since the last tyrannical government, the easier it is to think that it can't happen again.

"It could never happen here" is usually the beginning of it.

Originally Posted by North of 53

The right to bare arms is not about short sleeved shirts. The 2 amendment was put in place to make sure the people could defend themselves against a corrupt government or as they called it back then tyranny. If you use the 2scd amendment to guide you at to where to draw the line then there is no line. If the people need to be able to over power a corrupt government then they need access to the same arms as the tyrant they wish to over through. So unless you are ok with your neighbors missile silo. I don't suggest using the second amendment to justify why or why not a weapon should or should not be available to the public.
For me the line in the sand is that is the primary design of the weapon is to kill other human beings then its on the wrong side of the line. Home defense is an exception to that.
Having said that my son in law brought his SKS out to the farm and we had a blast in a gravel pit with it and it was just good clean fun. The SKS and the later AK47 are the biggest people killers there are so I will be the first to admit that drawing a line in the sand is not an easy thing to do.

Maybe that is why we have such stupid gun laws.

No, drawing a line is not easy, nor is it possible in this case. Every firearm is capable of taking a life if used inappropriately or carelessly regarless of whether they are the ones whose pedigree is as a simple hunting rifle right on up to our "military" clones. What you're looking for at that point is the intent of the person who is using the firearm as opposed to the item iteself. It has no moral or ethical choices to make; it does what it's made to do which is to propel a projectile at a distance and direction based off of the intent of the person squeezing the trigger.

In the American regard, their second amendment does confirm the right to their ownership, but not the decency to use them responsibly it seems.

I personally would like the option of hunting with an AR platform as I've said in other posts, if can be made to fit either my wife or my own pull length, they're light weight and reliable. What do you say to someone who hunts with an enfield? it is a military rifle repurposed for hunting. Its rate of fire in its day was superior and was an "assault weapon". Where do you draw the line?

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Gust

Ya know,, in 94, california had 10 stores selling anti aircraft guns. If anything the right to arms stateside should allow more military type weaponry as the ammendment is about being a militia. Neither here nor there.

Grenades would be fun but you'd need a facilty to make it more fun,,, lobbing grenades at gophers would get boring fast and depth charging for fish would be good just to see how big some fish out there are.

I've never read a songle post by bg stating at any point that he is anti-gun.

To be fair... the best thing about grenades is....
You don't have to clean em after use.

Otherwise they are kind of boring... abig clapang and maybe some dust or something kicked up but no mini-mushroom clouds or whatever.

It's about as much fun as throwing a rock or a fire cracker.