How Far Should The Second Amendment Go?

[Moby]

"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."

When the document was written it clearly states that the justification of it was based on each state having a a militia. It's presumed that the militias should have the power to fight off hostile governments. No where in the justification does it mention the protection of personal property but I think it is generally assumed.

Today there are no state militias and even if there were, most states could not even attempt to hold off the forces of the US Military.

When our founding fathers wrote about these arms I don't think they could even imagine the type of weapons today. There were no flying machines, gasoline engines, flame throwers, chemical weapons and explosives weren't really small and portable.

So where is the line?

[Moby]

Most of the 6 Billion people in the world don't seem to need guns to protect their personal property but in America we certainly do. However I don't think that all people have the right to bear all arms.

I think weapons that are for personal protection of a home and have a limited range of destruction should be legal. To me, shut guns are the largest destructive range that anyone needs for personal protection.

I have very mixed feelings about assault weapons. I just don't see why people need an Uzi or a 50 caliber sniper rifle for home protection.

[Moby]

I also don't think that child molesters, rapists and convicted felons should be allowed to own guns. Unless they're going to be part of a state militia, I think we can safely read the words above and decide that not everyone has the right to bear arms.

This does require a detailed background check.

[Hog Trash]

Pretty much any hand held, non-explosive weapon should be Second Amendment protected for non-felon, law abiding Americans.

For personal protection from criminals and the possibility of foreign invasion and #1, the possibility of defense from our own government.

The criminals are going to get any weapon they need anyway. Restrictions only disarm good people who are a non-threat to the public.

Why does government want to disarm us? When the government no longer trust the people, the people should no longer trust the government.

Its better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. The bad guys seek out the weak and helpless to victimize. Never tempt evil by being unprepared.

[Mr. Blue]

This is a difficult topic for me because I’m one of those people that don’t own a gun, but do support the right of gun ownership.

Where to draw the line though becomes problematic to me. If you look at the historical significance of the 2nd amendment you have a framing of a people that fought for their freedom. Now, let’s put it in the perspective of the time. The colonists were more or less armed with equivalent weaponry to the people they were trying to overthrow. So, if you think in that way, the “militia” would in fact have to be armed with the ability to defend itself against the U.S. Military of today. Now that seems a little ridiculous, but I’m wondering if the founder fathers would see it that way.

However, the word, “Well Regulated” means just that…we’re not talking about private citizens, more like a reserve force to defend states rights.
Where do I stand…handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, more or less should be allowed with a basic license. Assault rifles, etc, you’d have to get special licensing for it. Anything beyond that should be regulated by a state militia, but since we don’t have that, well…

I don’t really have a problem with people owning guns as long as they’re well educated in the use, they respect the power of the weapons, and have a clean past, i.e. rapists, child molesters, violent offenders, should lose the right.

Now, I’d like to see people relax a little on the topic of weapon ownership, because I happen to be a knife collector and even in this area you’ll find some insane regulations, ones that a criminal would never follow, but someone like me would.

[Bill]

If we ended the drug war, and started putting people in jail with long sentences for gun crimes instead, it might make the whole point moot.

Gun accidents should get jail time too, with the possible exception of true freak accidents, tho how one should define that is tricky.

Improper gun handling should definitely be a misdeamnor, possibly a felony.

Handling things like the recent "make my day" shooting death in colorado is problematic. Personally, I think shooting a guy on your doorstep because he's pounding on your door is improper gun handling and manslaughter.

But all the facts of that case have yet to come out last I checked.

http://www.gazette.com/articles/kennedy_45573___article.html/home_police.html

[Bill]

Now, I’d like to see people relax a little on the topic of weapon ownership, because I happen to be a knife collector and even in this area you’ll find some insane regulations, ones that a criminal would never follow, but someone like me would.

Really? Me too.

I have to keep my desire to own interesting knifes under control, especially these last few years. But I still scan ebay. And lusting after koto tantos. And jambiyahs.

[Cat slave]

I also don't think that child molesters, rapists and convicted felons should be allowed to own guns. Unless they're going to be part of a state militia, I think we can safely read the words above and decide that not everyone has the right to bear arms.

This does require a detailed background check.

Those kinds of people have no respect for laws or they wouldnt be rapists,
child molesters and felons.

I think "to keep and bear arms" says it all.

[Cat slave]

Pretty much any hand held, non-explosive weapon should be Second Amendment protected for non-felon, law abiding Americans.

For personal protection from criminals and the possibility of foreign invasion and #1, the possibility of defense from our own government.

The criminals are going to get any weapon they need anyway. Restrictions only disarm good people who are a non-threat to the public.

Why does government want to disarm us? When the government no longer trust the people, the people should no longer trust the government.

Its better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. The bad guys seek out the weak and helpless to victimize. Never tempt evil by being unprepared.


Well said HT!!

[ROdger Right]

Yes, we have weapons to hunt and for sport. For protection and all the rest that we say a need. But a question comes to mind how would we fight the government with rifles and handguns. Itd be hard to get the right kind of restrictions for anti tanks guns and the rest but wouldnt they come in handy for a rebellion?

[foxbaron]

I'll draw the line at nukes but other than that we should be able to have whatever we want should the day come that we have to fight our own government.

As a matter of fact every adult male and female should be required to be trained in the use of handguns, rifles and shotguns. And non-violent felons can have all the guns they want once they have paid their debt to society.

[Hog Trash]

Yes, we have weapons to hunt and for sport. For protection and all the rest that we say a need. But a question comes to mind how would we fight the government with rifles and handguns. Itd be hard to get the right kind of restrictions for anti tanks guns and the rest but wouldnt they come in handy for a rebellion?In a situation where you were forced to go to war with your own government, you would need sufficiant firepower for the enitial uprising.

With that you would be able to capture and scavange weapons along the way. eventualy you would be sufficiatly armed, considering the type of warfare you would be waging.

Hopefully some military forces would eventually switch sides to the patriots, considering they would be ordered to kill their friends, family and neighbors.

The Chinese college student uprising in Tienamin Square, Bejing China comes to mind. The brave unarmed young man standing in front of an approaching tank comes to mind.

These people willingly gave up their gun rights when ordered by a government that they brought into power and trusted. Now they are helplessly at their mercy.

When your government says give up your guns, you don't need them because we will protect you, don't believe them. Instead ask them who's going to protect them from the government.

[Mr. Blue]

Really? Me too.

I have to keep my desire to own interesting knifes under control, especially these last few years. But I still scan ebay. And lusting after koto tantos. And jambiyahs.

I can't even look at ebay anymore, lol. I recently sold off half my collection though and mainly kept the more functional part of my collection. It all started though with a History Professor that wanted to show his students what it was like to wage war old school style. I still remember him handing me a Roman Short Sword and that got me hooked on collecting.

To get back on topic though...I'd really like to own some automatic knives, switchblades, some of the Italian made automatic knives, and also I'm a throwing knife enthusiast, so, even there the regulations get dicey. Since there's no federal rules it's more of a state by state thing.

Unfortunately in NY it's both illegal to possess and carry switchblades...I wouldn't mind if they created a licensing for these types of knives.

[disrupter]

I think the recent Supreme Court finding was pretty good.
It said individuals DO have a right to keep & bear arms, but it is not unlimited,
ie. communities can impose reasonable restrictions to that constitutional right.

[Moby]

Why does government want to disarm us?
Who's trying to disarm us? Has there been legislation that would require individuals to hand over their guns?

Adding a background check for people to purchase automatic weapons is a far cry from trying to disarm the population. Of course sensationalizing the issue makes it much more emotional then rational so there's a lot of demand for that.

What's the worst bit of legislation against the 2nd amendment that's come down the pipes in the last few years?

[Independent Harry]

Who's trying to disarm us? Has there been legislation that would require individuals to hand over their guns?

Adding a background check for people to purchase automatic weapons is a far cry from trying to disarm the population. Of course sensationalizing the issue makes it much more emotional then rational so there's a lot of demand for that.

What's the worst bit of legislation against the 2nd amendment that's come down the pipes in the last few years?

last I checked we just allowed a whole new city to arm themselves with handguns, DC anyone?

[Hog Trash]

Who's trying to disarm us? Has there been legislation that would require individuals to hand over their guns?

Adding a background check for people to purchase automatic weapons is a far cry from trying to disarm the population. Of course sensationalizing the issue makes it much more emotional then rational so there's a lot of demand for that.

What's the worst bit of legislation against the 2nd amendment that's come down the pipes in the last few years?There are people and organizations who are hard at work promoting total gun-bans and believe the Second Amendment does not give citizens the right to own firearms of any kind.

These people work very hard towards this goal, and have the support of many politicians. Politicians are torn between love for their cushy government jobs and granting these gun-banners their wish.

Most Americans still support Second Amendment rights and would no longer support these politicians. This is the only thing holding the politicians back from granting the gun-banners their wish.

The next strategy is to chip away at gun ownership a little at a time and using the media to influence Americans of the evil of guns, the NRA, red-neck nuts and doped up gang-bangers, to gain the people's support.

They have had a lot of success with their strategy and have banned many types of guns and have convinced people to ignore facts, such as criminals don't care about gun-bans. It even makes their job safer.

If it wasn't for the wisdom of our wise forefathers, we would be fucked already. It will never stop, because these people are relentless. We must never give an inch because an inch won't satisfy them.
last I checked we just allowed a whole new city to arm themselves with handguns, DC anyone?This isn't rocket science, einstein....The bad guys in DC were not affected by a gun ban and were never unarmed.

The only people the gun ban affected were law abiding citizens, who were at the mercy of the well armed bad guys.

I don't know how some of you morons even manage to feed yourselves....You must be a fuckin mess after a meal.

[foxbaron]

registering weapons and backgrounds checks gives the government a data base of who owns what and where which makes it easier to confiscate what you have.

[hdmarketing]

Most of the 6 Billion people in the world don't seem to need guns to protect their personal property but in America we certainly do.
First of all Moby Guns should NOT be used to potect "Personal Property".
There is NOTHING in a material that warrents killing someone over.

Taking another Human Life is a very serious thing, trust me I know from personal experience.

However with that said, Human Life it's self is worth defending.

I agree with the State of AZ on this one.

You can NOT use Deadly Lethal Force to defend any property at all, but you can use Deadly Lethal Force to protect personal life, or the life of another.

Again, for those that lack understanding of what self defence is all about, I suggest looking up Massad Ayoob.

However I don't think that all people have the right to bear all arms.

I agree with you there Moby.
For instance in AZ if you are convicted of Domestic Violence (beating up your spouce or childern), you will have your firearms taken away, and will no longer be able to have firearms again in the state.
Certain people just shouldn't have firearms, but do you really think that by imposing gun laws you are going to keep guns out of the hands of bad people?

Pot is illigal, but people still smoke it.
Underage drinking is against the law, but countless minors still drink.
Taking guns away from people only removes one's right to defend themself, outlaws will still have access.


I think weapons that are for personal protection of a home and have a limited range of destruction should be legal.
To me, shut guns are the largest destructive range that anyone needs for personal protection.
Nah, Home defence is quite fine with a .38, plenty of stopping power.
Although I am kind of fond of my Mossberg 500A Cruiser.

Also Moby it all depends on what kind of amunition one is paking.

For instance I only load 158 Grain Semi Jacketed Hollow Points for my .357 for defence. Some say it's overkill, but what the hell.
On the other hand for target practice, I load 125 grain semi wadcutters.

It all depends on what you load as to how much damage you are going to do.


I have very mixed feelings about assault weapons. I just don't see why people need an Uzi or a 50 caliber sniper rifle for home protection.
I agree.
I see NO sense at all in that nonsense, pure rubbish.

I do however own some. I am an avid gun person/collector, and I see NO reason why I shouldn't be allowed to own them for show's and just because I happen to love guns.
On the 50 Cal, I have one I use for long distance Hunting.
Great for long distance, you only get ONE shot, but most of the time if you have a good scope, you only need one shot to bring down that trophy Buck anyhow.

[hdmarketing]

Now, I’d like to see people relax a little on the topic of weapon ownership, because I happen to be a knife collector and even in this area you’ll find some insane regulations, ones that a criminal would never follow, but someone like me would.

Cold Steel.
http://www.coldsteel.com/

The best in Knives...

[Mr. Blue]

Cold Steel.
http://www.coldsteel.com/

The best in Knives...

They make very good throwing knives. Actually looking at the site that Ti-lite looks like my next purchase :D

[Moby]

First of all Moby Guns should NOT be used to potect "Personal Property".
I guess when I think or property protection I think of my home, my wife and my 4 year old daughter. I don't think I'd shoot someone that has already left my house with my wallet unless they hurt a family member and then I'd probably shoot out of rage and might regret later.

But yeah, shooting some one for stealing isn't my thing.

[Smurf-Herder]

I feel it should apply to exactly what it's always been thought to apply to.

Hand guns, shot guns, hunting rifles and non-automatic versions of military rifles for collectors.

[ROdger Right]

Add kits thtcan be bought to turn semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic and we end up where we are.
Your right hog that aafter it started all youd have to do is steal fro the government all the weapons you need to fight a war. Easy enough right?

My castle is my home where my law rules. Perosnal property protection although it can be fucked up like naturally a texas man shot a dude passed out drunk on his couch in the morning. Like that would suck. He wasnt even stealing, but thats better than injuring a theirf and getting sued for it.

[hdmarketing]

They make very good throwing knives. Actually looking at the site that Ti-lite looks like my next purchase :D

Do you have any of the Videos?

You should get some.

[hdmarketing]

I guess when I think or property protection I think of my home, my wife and my 4 year old daughter. I don't think I'd shoot someone that has already left my house with my wallet unless they hurt a family member and then I'd probably shoot out of rage and might regret later.

But yeah, shooting some one for stealing isn't my thing.

Moby, I kind of thought that was what you were saying, but the law looks at Property VS Human life in tow very diffrent ways.

[Hog Trash]

The government is suppose to fear it's citizens, never the other way around.

The more the government fears us, the safer we are and all the more secure our freedom.

The more heavily armed the people are, the more the government fears us, as their suppose to.

Our vote puts them in power, our guns keep them honest....Or that's the intention anyway. :thumbsup:

[Hog Trash]

First of all Moby Guns should NOT be used to potect "Personal Property".
There is NOTHING in a material that warrents killing someone over.
If someone breaks into my house, I don't know if they just want to steal something or worse.

I damn sure ain''t going to wait around to find out exactly what their intentions are, I'm gonna blowem away.

Not only might I have saved my or a family members life, I also rid the world of a low-life piece of shit.

[kres24GT]

"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."

When the document was written it clearly states that the justification of it was based on each state having a a militia. It's presumed that the militias should have the power to fight off hostile governments. No where in the justification does it mention the protection of personal property but I think it is generally assumed.

Today there are no state militias and even if there were, most states could not even attempt to hold off the forces of the US Military.

When our founding fathers wrote about these arms I don't think they could even imagine the type of weapons today. There were no flying machines, gasoline engines, flame throwers, chemical weapons and explosives weren't really small and portable.

So where is the line?


They could have never imagines the size of government either. That is why they gave us the ability to amend it. They new times would change and the Constitution would need to be updated. Unfortunately we long ago decided to simply ignore or interpret the Constitution as we see fit. It is an irrelevant document nowadays, it has no bearing on our government or laws.

[Smurf-Herder]

It is an irrelevant document nowadays, it has no bearing on our government or laws.

That's a very dangerous concept. It upens up the floodgates for a free-for-all change in the very concepts most of us rely on as a free society.

[Moby]

It is an irrelevant document nowadays, it has no bearing on our government or laws.
You and Frank been drinking cheap beer together?

[Hog Trash]

"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."
When the document was written it clearly states that the justification of it was based on each state having a a militia. It's presumed that the militias should have the power to fight off hostile governments. No where in the justification does it mention the protection of personal property but I think it is generally assumed.Nobody but a complete fool believes the framers of the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, never intended for the American citizens to keep and bear arms, for hunting, personal protection, but mainly for the purpose of defense against government tierany. Without the citizen soldier and private gun ownership there never would have been an America and they knew it and realized the importance of the Second Amendment.

Today there are no state militias and even if there were, most states could not even attempt to hold off the forces of the US Military.Posse Comitatus forbids this, but the government is successfully circumventing this safety valve and we do nothing. But regardless, the government knows the military is not totally reliable because they come from our ranks. Their other and greatest fear is the millions of armed citizens, many of them veterans, who could be in every house, on every street in every town and every city and every country road, and they would be potential enemy combatants. It would be war in the streets every time the sun went down. A well armed citizen army is undefensible against. The government does not want this. Their only hope is to disarm us and render us helpless, like the people of Russia or China.
When our founding fathers wrote about these arms I don't think they could even imagine the type of weapons today. There were no flying machines, gasoline engines, flame throwers, chemical weapons and explosives weren't really small and portable.

So where is the line?I don't agree with you. I believe our founding fathers were some very educated and intelligent men. I'm amazed at how much they foresaw.

I am 100% positive they foresaw advancement in weapon technology. We are totally aware of future advancements, why wouldn,t they be?

[kres24GT]

That's a very dangerous concept. It upens up the floodgates for a free-for-all change in the very concepts most of us rely on as a free society.


Not sure what country you live in. in the USA we are far from a free country and we certainly do not obey the Constitution. A Constitutional federal government would frighten most over 99% of Americans who believe only via big government can they live their lives.

[kres24GT]

You and Frank been drinking cheap beer together?

Um, we do not follow the Constitution anymore, nor do the people want a constitutional federal government, both of these are facts. That is why we only have like one amendment in the past 30 years and it was going on 20 years ago.


Almost all of our government in unconstitutional. The 10th amendment is ignored almost constantly.

[Moby]

I don't agree with you. I believe our founding fathers were some very educated and intelligent men. I'm amazed at how much they foresaw.

I am 100% positive they foresaw advancement in weapon technology. We are totally aware of future advancements, why wouldn,t they be?
So you think they meant that average citizens should have nuclear weapons, ICMBs and biological weapons?

The previous 1,000 years before the Constitution was written didn't have huge technology advances in weapons. Gun powder hit Europe around the 1200s and 500 years later it was basically still the most advanced weapon. Weapons didn't really start advancing in a serious manner until the 20th century.

When looking at the weapons tech progression I think they might have envisioned a 50 caliber machine gun but nothing like nukes, ICMBs or bio weapons. There simply wasn't anything in the previous 1,000 years or more that would show such progression.

[Hog Trash]

So you think they meant that average citizens should have nuclear weapons, ICMBs and biological weapons?

The previous 1,000 years before the Constitution was written didn't have huge technology advances in weapons. Gun powder hit Europe around the 1200s and 500 years later it was basically still the most advanced weapon. Weapons didn't really start advancing in a serious manner until the 20th century.

When looking at the weapons tech progression I think they might have envisioned a 50 caliber machine gun but nothing like nukes, ICMBs or bio weapons. There simply wasn't anything in the previous 1,000 years or more that would show such progression.They intended for us to have the weapons necessary to defend against a government and military gone bad. Nukes and biological weapons would kill us also.

The only reason to use WMD's in a revolution would be for a 'scorched earth' final defense strategy, but I'm all for it......Give me liberty or give me death. :read:

{No, that doesn't mean I believe citizens should have "nuclear weapons, ICMBs and biological weapons". Let's try to keep it real, einstein.}

[ROdger Right]

SM You dont think rifling was a huge break through in the 19th century, i mean our civil war changed how the world fought wars or atleast europe too.
Plus you have the first machine guns (gatlins) brought up.

Um, we do not follow the Constitution anymore, nor do the people want a constitutional federal government, both of these are facts. That is why we only have like one amendment in the past 30 years and it was going on 20 years ago.


Almost all of our government in unconstitutional. The 10th amendment is ignored almost constantly.

And oh so wise man what would you say if we had a state by state vote on gay marriage. For that is a perfect example of amendment 10.

[Moby]

SM You dont think rifling was a huge break through in the 19th century, i mean our civil war changed how the world fought wars or atleast europe too.

Plus you have the first machine guns (gatlins) brought up.

The Bill or Rights was written in 1789. The rifle went through some changes but nothing drastic for 100s of years. Basically it existed for 200 years and was still a single shot weapon that took quite some time to load.

It's difficult to see how they could have envisioned a modern day attack helicopter or a hand held rocket launcher that could take it down.

[Moby]

They intended for us to have the weapons necessary to defend against a government and military gone bad. Nukes and biological weapons would kill us also.
What about Surface To Arm missiles, drones or Anti-Tank weapons? There's no way that any force on Earth could defend against our government without those types of weapons.

These also happen to be the same types of weapons that could be used to take out passenger air planes, buses or Air Force One.

They also used the phrase "Well Regulated" and "Militia". Does that mean they were talking about assault rifles for personal use without verification of who owns them?

[Smurf-Herder]

What about Surface To Arm missiles, drones or Anti-Tank weapons? There's no way that any force on Earth could defend against our government without those types of weapons.

These also happen to be the same types of weapons that could be used to take out passenger air planes, buses or Air Force One.

They also used the phrase "Well Regulated" and "Militia". Does that mean they were talking about assault rifles for personal use without verification of who owns them?


Who's talking about no verification as to who is the owner of a weapon?

[Hog Trash]

Verify the purchaser is not a convicted felon but absolutely NO weapon registration.

The one and only purpose of weapon registration is for future confiscation.

[Moby]

Verify the purchaser is not a convicted felon but absolutely NO weapon registration.

The one and only purpose of weapon registration is for future confiscation.
Or solving crimes and stuff like that. A free thinker would figure that out.

Besides, doesn't there need to be some verification that a legit business is actually doing those background checks?

Right now anyone, even that crazy guy that shot up all those students can but a gun at a show.

[hdmarketing]

If someone breaks into my house, I don't know if they just want to steal something or worse.

I damn sure ain''t going to wait around to find out exactly what their intentions are, I'm gonna blowem away.

Not only might I have saved my or a family members life, I also rid the world of a low-life piece of shit.

I totally agree with everything you just said.

Justification my friend is the bottom dollar.

If you can justify it in a court of law, and show that justification you will more than likely win.

What I am saying is that if someone is toting a VCR out of your house, you had better NOT shoot them in the back.

If the perp is in your house and turns to flee and you shoot him in the back, you are guilty of murder because the law will see it as he had his back to you and the threat was over because he was trying to flee the scene.

Trust me on this one Hog, I have had many hours of home defense and combat training by some of the best.

You better know the law, and how to handle that situation when it comes.

Many people can talk the big talk, but when the rubber meats the road, just how far can they go.

That's what I am saying.

[Hog Trash]

If you can justify it in a court of law, and show that justification you will more than likely win.

What I am saying is that if someone is toting a VCR out of your house, you had better NOT shoot them in the back.

If the perp is in your house and turns to flee and you shoot him in the back, you are guilty of murder because the law will see it as he had his back to you and the threat was over because he was trying to flee the scene.
I understand what you are saying and agree. If the crackhead takes one in the back, I'll claim I was a scared old man and shot in the heat of the moment, just as he was turning. I believe only an all liberal jury would convict in most cases. One good conservative on the jury is all it takes to hang the jury. I unfortionately live in a blue county, and have worse odds on having a friendly intelligent jury. But like I said, one juror is all it takes, and I'm gambling my life if I shoot. My rationalization is, I'm getting old and have less to lose and will not tolerate a lowlife breaking in my home. The world will be a better place without him.

[Smurf-Herder]

Hopefully the uncertainty of who is a gun owner will deter the potential criminal from attempting a break-in, in the first place.