Do you like guns or gun control?

[Vesayen]

Open to anyone but aimed at Americans....

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.

National guards are NOT a militia... since they are funded partially by the federal goverment, they are not the property of the state.... hell, the federal goverment can force the "militia" into active server in a war.

Almost all gun control laws are unconstitutional because the point of the second amendment is to let us take out an oppresive federal goverment.

Most of the founding fathers echoed that sentiment and if you wish to say that it is old and outdated.... well how does the date effect its validty? That argument means the rest of the constitution is meaningless too.

Bans on owning cruise missles or biological or chemicals violate the second amendment too but personally, I would not mind that since they would likley kill more civilians then an oppresive goverment... but that would also be unconstitutional.

I do not even own a gun, or have a liscence for one but I really like the second amendment.... it is a shame our constitutional right to take out an oppresive goverment is long gone........


Thoughts?

[alva]

And this was written when exactly? and under what circumstances? Good thing the world hasn't changed than hey, so that this is as true as the day when it was written.

[Vesayen]

The time it was written has no importance, at all. If you want to ammend the constitution to get rid of the second ammendment, that is fine. Right now however, all gun control is illegal and unconstitutional.

You think times are different and want guns to be illegal? Fine, do it properly.

Right now we are having our rights repressed by anti gun idiots who don't understand the constutition or the way our goverment is supposed to work-they just know what THEY want.

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by Vesayen
The time it was written has no importance, at all. If you want to ammend the constitution to get rid of the second ammendment, that is fine. Right now however, all gun control is illegal and unconstitutional.

Yeah, and the Supreme Court has no say in that?

[Vesayen]

The supreme court, is wrong. Their rulings in favor of gun controll are OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional-does it take more then a cursory glance to realize that?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Vesayen
The supreme court, is wrong. Their rulings in favor of gun controll are OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional-does it take more then a cursory glance to realize that?

The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.

[Vesayen]

Supreme court decisions have also been overturned by later courts in the past.


There are plenty of cases of laws relating to gun controll laws which have NOT been brought before the supreme court, and thus are still illegal.

[GePap]

If the government can regulate speech and religion, it can sure as hell regulate gun ownership.

Maybe you have been absent the last few years, but most effective ways of getitng rid of a bad government are carried out peacefully. Anhd most armed revolts against even the most noxious governments fail unless the vast mayority of the populace supports the revolt, or the revolt is also backed by the military.

A bunch of guys with machines guns and explosives would not stand a chance against a trully repressive military bent on their total annahilation and not giving a damn about world opinion.

On top of all of this, most guns used for crime (handguns) are also those less worthwhile for fighting "the government". So lets control handgun ownreship up the ying yang.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Right now we are having our rights repressed by anti gun idiots who don't understand the constutition or the way our goverment is supposed to work-they just know what THEY want.

Just a question.

Do you think a bunch of people with small arms can take on the US military? This is not the 18th century, when the "oppressor" wasn't much better armed than the "rebels."

The rationale for gun ownership is obsolete, dead, buried.

[Vesayen]

Small arms? No.

Heavy machine guns?

Heavy, full auto, assault rifles?

Anti air craft devices?

LAWS(light anti tank weapons)?

All the good stuff currently illegal?

Maybe.

Any revolutionary conflict would not involve aircraft or much armor, the collatoral damage would be too high and the troops would proboably refuse to fire on civilians with them anyway.


The rationale is as valid today as ever, citizens need to have the proper weapons to keep the goverment in check. The fact the needed weapons have been made illegal, does not mean anything.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Small arms? No.

Heavy machine guns?

Assault rifles?

Anti air craft devices?

LAWS(light anti tank weapons)?

Maybe.

Any revolutionary conflict would not involve aircraft or much armor, the collatoral damage would be too high and the troops would proboably refuse to fire on civilians with them anyway.

What world are you from?

Chechnya and Iraq both disprove one of your points outright (unless you want to claim the Russians and the US have not used airpower and armor in their anti-insurgency fight?)

As for troops refusing to fire on civilians:

If this were true, then it would not matter if the civilians were armed or not, does it, since in the act of refusing order to fire the military condemns the regime to collapse...

And of course, as in Uzbekistan, and China, the soldiers could decide to shoot....

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Any revolutionary conflict would not involve aircraft or much armor, the collatoral damage would be too high and the troops would proboably refuse to fire on civilians with them anyway.

If you don't have any weapons, soldiers may not fire on you. If you have nice toys, OTOH, you can bet the shirt you are wearing that not only they will fire, but will fire first.

When you are armed, you are no longer a civilian. You are the Enemy.

Originally posted by Vesayen
The rationale is as valid today as ever, citizens need to have the proper weapons to keep the goverment in check. The fact the needed weapons have been made illegal, does not mean anything.

You have so far failed to establish such a case.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by GePap


What world are you from?

Chechnya and Iraq both disprove one of your points outright (unless you want to claim the Russians and the US have not used airpower and armor in their anti-insurgency fight?)

As for troops refusing to fire on civilians:

If this were true, then it would not matter if the civilians were armed or not, does it, since in the act of refusing order to fire the military condemns the regime to collapse...

And of course, as in Uzbekistan, and China, the soldiers could decide to shoot....

Chechnya and Iraqi do *NOT* have civilian uprisings with the majority of popular support, nor the possible sympathy of the army fighting them...... an american civil war would have both.

The point is that I am supposed to be able to protect myself, even if the military says they will act against the populace-even though they never will.

The soldiers wont shoot, but it is a moot point, completley unrelated.








What is unclear? I have a right in the constitution to defend myself from an oppresive goverment, simply because this right has been infringed on and is very hard to act on now, does not mean that right has been revoked.

I'm not sure if I could explain it any more simply.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Vesayen


Chechnya and Iraqi do *NOT* have civilian uprisings with the majority of popular support, nor the possible sympathy of the army fighting them...... an american civil war would have both.

Chechnya sure did- it was a local separatist attempt. The Russians came in guns blazing.

Plus WE ALREADY HAD AN AMERICAN CIVIL WAR. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WON.

The point is that I am supposed to be able to protect myself, even if the military says they will act against the populace-even though they never will.

And having a gun won't actually protect you from government repression genius. All that would need to be done is accuse you of a minor crime, have the police go in to bring you for questioning-if you resisted, then you would be a criminal and then the government will be 'justified' in getting rid of you by any means necessary.

The soldiers wont shoot, but it is a moot point, completley unrelated.

Actually, NO, this is the WHOLE POINT. If you assert that the army would never shoot, then you have no rational case to state you would need a gun to protect yourself, since you are stating that a threat does NOT exist.

Jesus H Christ

What is unclear? I have a right in the constitution to defend myself from an oppresive goverment, simply because this right has been infringed on and is very hard to act on now, does not mean that right has been revoked.

Actually, I don;t see the "right in the constitution to defend myself from an oppresive goverment" writen ANYWHERE in the consitution. You have the right to bear arms in the consitution, just as you have the right to free speech, free assembly, and freedom to practice religion. The government does regulate your right to speak (you can be arrested for inciting to violence), your right of assembly (in most locales you need a permit to carry out a political protest) and religion (certain religious practices can be banned, including animal sacrifice and the use of various halucigens) so your claim that the right to bear arms simply can't be regulated stands on, well, nothing.

I'm not sure if I could explain it any more simply.

Correction, you could not explain it worse.

[Vesayen]

Plus WE ALREADY HAD AN AMERICAN CIVIL WAR. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WON.

So?

And having a gun won't actually protect you from government repression genius. All that would need to be done is accuse you of a minor crime, have the police go in to bring you for questioning-if you resisted, then you would be a criminal and then the government will be 'justified' in getting rid of you by any means necessary.

Thus why gun control is insane.

Actually, NO, this is the WHOLE POINT. If you assert that the army would never shoot, then you have no rational case to state you would need a gun to protect yourself, since you are stating that a threat does NOT exist.

Jesus H Christ

Because the promise is in the constitution.

Actually, I don;t see the "right in the constitution to defend myself from an oppresive goverment" writen ANYWHERE in the consitution. You have the right to bear arms in the consitution, just as you have the right to free speech, free assembly, and freedom to practice religion. The government does regulate your right to speak (you can be arrested for inciting to violence), your right of assembly (in most locales you need a permit to carry out a political protest) and religion (certain religious practices can be banned, including animal sacrifice and the use of various halucigens) so your claim that the right to bear arms simply can't be regulated stands on, well, nothing.

As I said....

'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.'

How exactly do you interpret that as anything but what it says? We have lord knows how many documents by the founding fathers TELLING us what it means if it unclear. The constitution clearly says that an armed citizenry is neccesary to keep us free.