It's time to show all you assault rifle hating flower weenies the truth!!!!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Ned
As to the Second Amendment -- it protects only the right to bear "military" style weapons. There are Supreme Court cases that actually say this. The Second Amendment is not there to protect "hunters" or people trying to defend their homes. It exists solely so that the people may form military units in defense of the nation.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" bears NO possible interpretion other than you can't frigging ban guns! It doesn't say "except when blah blah", or anything. It is a definate statement that has exactly one possible meaning.

And wrt SCOTUS, it may be argued that it has usurped its power in "interpreting" the Constitution to have a meaning almost diametrically opposed to what it literally says.

You would be a lot more persuasive if you quoted the entire Second amendment and not just the parts, quoted out of context, that can be warped to support your intended meaning.

[NeOmega]

No, but the realities mean that at this point, having the civilian populace armed with assault or even automatic weapons would not make a difference in case #2 (revolt ves internal dictatorship). Without outright and vocal support from a large section of the masses AND dissention amongs the military any armed revolt vs your local dictator will fail, period.

True. (except the no part) You need support form both the populace, and some inside people in said dictator's army. Depending on the level of popular revulsion of the dictator... if he/she is wildly unpopular, many in hte army ranks will feel the same.

Time and time and time and time again, revolutions and civil wars have occured. They continue to occur to this day.

And I don;t see how people having assualt rifles or beyond would quicken dissention in the military or make the masses like the rebels.

I didn't say it would. But an armed populace with a small share of a disenfranchised military can crumble an entire empire.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned


You would be a lot more persuasive if you quoted the entire Second amendment and not just the parts, quoted out of context, that can be warped to support your intended meaning.

You want the full thing (btw, I was quoting out of memory, and I wasn't sure on the precise wording of the rest)?

"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."

The first part gives the reason for the Amendment (and it's unclear as to whether it refers to security from foreign armies or domestic tyranny) - it doesn't actually make any statement of law.

[Ned]

And, what did I say? I said the purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide weapons for the citizen so that they could form military units, also known as militias, to defend the nation. Now, it seems on further inspection, that you agree with me.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ned
And, what did I say? I said the purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide weapons for the citizen so that they could form military units, also known as militias, to defend the nation. Now, it seems on further inspection, that you agree with me.

Provide?

I don't see provide in there anywhere.

I see "the right to bear and keep arms, shall not be infringed.

BTW, the founding fathers were educated and intelligent men. They knew, throughout history, governments start on deals and over time they inevitably become corrupt. What they wrote back then, they meant. And they made the right to bear arms #2 for a reason.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
And, what did I say? I said the purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide weapons for the citizen so that they could form military units, also known as militias, to defend the nation.

What's your point?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Then they'd just puncture the fuselage and send the plane crashing down randomly over New York

It's stupid comments like this that show the power Hollywood wields over people's perceptions.

[Alexander's Horse]

I would like to see cowboy style gunbelts make a comeback in the USA.

[David Floyd]

The point of the 2nd Amendment - JUST LIKE THE REST of the Bill of Rights - was to protect individual liberty against the power of the federal government. Nothing more, nothing less. It wasn't to make militias possible, or anything of the sort.

[Alexander's Horse]

You should learn to love your government.

[David Floyd]

Sure, so long as the government protects individual liberty, it's great.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Ned
I personally see no use for one to own military style weapons for hunting and the like. They could be useful for defense of one's home or business. I would rather confront a bad guy with the best automatic weapon available rather than a relatively useless pea shooter that was only going to get me killed.

As to the Second Amendment -- it protects only the right to bear "military" style weapons. There are Supreme Court cases that actually say this. The Second Amendment is not there to protect "hunters" or people trying to defend their homes. It exists solely so that the people may form military units in defense of the nation.

Ted in Ca., the AR-15 is banned, but a 22 auto is not. There is no difference, they are both semiautomatic. It is because the AR-15 is the Civilian version of the M-16.
With a 22 auto Mag and a scope do you know what I coud do?

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Japher


I don't care about the per capita numbers, I would like to see the per household number. I think that if you own one gun you are more likely to own 2, and in the south 27...

I have 22 auto pistol 6 rounds, 22 9 shots, a .45 Cal six gun, a 357 Mag, a 9 MM 15 rounds legal, a 30/30, a 303 bote action and a 3" Mag Shotgun.

I also would like to have a 44 Mag, a 45 Cal 1911. An Uzi would be nice and maybe an AK.

My brother who lives in MO has over 100 guns. And they still drive around with them in the back window.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Sure, so long as the government protects individual liberty, it's great.

Government is your friend - we know what's best for you.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Joseph
Ted in Ca., the AR-15 is banned, but a 22 auto is not. There is no difference, they are both semiautomatic. It is because the AR-15 is the Civilian version of the M-16.
With a 22 auto Mag and a scope do you know what I coud do?

IIRC the Ar-15 and M-16 use a .22 diameter bullet powered by a military style .30 caliber cartiridge. This cartirdge supplies considerably more power than an ordinary .22 cartridge of the type used to hunt small game. It's also considerably more powerful than a .22 magnum. The bullet used by the AR-15, though the same diameter as the .22 bullet is larger and better designed to bring down a human being. No matter what you think you could do with a .22 auto mag, you could do a lot more damage with an AR-15, though I will concede that if you're thinking of sniping the AR-15 would not be a good choice. I'm not sure if they make a scope that would fit an AR-15 without modification.