[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Blackbird45

This notion that armed citizens can stop this government if it becomes tyrannical is a joke and something from a Hollywood movie. You show up with a gun the ruler shows up with a drone. You kill one of theirs they take out your entire block. The war in Ukraine is a perfect example, even with what weapons they had they had to reach out for more. Who do you think will come to our help if we end up in a revolution.

What movie would that be?

Every single right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is there to protect the citizens of America from government overreach. It would be illogical to think that just one (the 2nd. Amendment) was NOT there for that purpose.

THE CONCORD HYMN (1st. Stanza) by Ralph Waldo Emerson:

"By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
 Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
 And fired the shot heard round the world."


April 19, 1775, and the majority of the American colonists had had enough. They were suffering under the oppression of a powerful government, a government that deigned to act "in the best interests" of the colonists without any input FROM the colonists. So these embattled farmers took on the soldiers of (at the time) the mightiest nation on the planet. They knew full well that what they were doing, in the view of the British crown, was treason. They knew that the penalty for treason was death. Their chances for success were probably slim and none.

But they took the stand. And in the end, a government was implemented that SERVED the people, not the other way around.

It would not have happened that way, had the colonists NOT been armed.

Every one of the founders had lived through that time, when the only way to throw off government oppression was through armed resistance. And I have absolutely no doubt that the 2nd Amendment, just like every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, was put there to protect the people from government overreach: in the case of the 2nd Amendment, for the express purpose of making sure the people, through force of arms if necessary, had the ability to resist oppression.

[Taltarzac725]

Interpretation: The Second Amendment | The National Constitution Center

This is a good discussion of the 2nd Amendment.

My opinion is that the Founding Fathers in their wisdom made that sentence about the "right to bear arms" very unclear so future Americans could interpret it to fit the technology of that time. They did know how inventions like gunpowder and the printing press could change society quite a bit.

[Taltarzac725]

They would have lost but not for getting the French, Dutch and Spanish to help with their ships. These ships cost a lot of money to build and maintain.

Ship of the line - Wikipedia

Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

What movie would that be?

Every single right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is there to protect the citizens of America from government overreach. It would be illogical to think that just one (the 2nd. Amendment) was NOT there for that purpose.

THE CONCORD HYMN (1st. Stanza) by Ralph Waldo Emerson:

"By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
 Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
 And fired the shot heard round the world."


April 19, 1775, and the majority of the American colonists had had enough. They were suffering under the oppression of a powerful government, a government that deigned to act "in the best interests" of the colonists without any input FROM the colonists. So these embattled farmers took on the soldiers of (at the time) the mightiest nation on the planet. They knew full well that what they were doing, in the view of the British crown, was treason. They knew that the penalty for treason was death. Their chances for success were probably slim and none.

But they took the stand. And in the end, a government was implemented that SERVED the people, not the other way around.

It would not have happened that way, had the colonists NOT been armed.

Every one of the founders had lived through that time, when the only way to throw off government oppression was through armed resistance. And I have absolutely no doubt that the 2nd Amendment, just like every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, was put there to protect the people from government overreach: in the case of the 2nd Amendment, for the express purpose of making sure the people, through force of arms if necessary, had the ability to resist oppression.

[jebartle]

Originally Posted by Joe C.

No, No, No. If you know and understand firearms, you would change your opinion. However we do have a Constitution, and are obligated to abide by it.
Those who choose to commit "mass murder", don't care about the law.
And BTW, millions of us own at least one semi-automatic, and we don't go around killing people.

Sooo, if not war related, or mass murder, one would ask, why own semi-automatic, obliterating watermelons maybe????

[jebartle]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

We've all seen many statements like this, and as many rebuttals. I've seen nothing original, either side, for decades now.

Maybe we need to look not so much at banning the tool but to act in a way that ensures, as much as possible, that it is used lawfully. And in my mind this should consist of two things:

First, consequate misuse severely. All too often, someone or several someones get convicted of a crime in which a gun was used (whether or not it was fired), only to find out that the charge of illegal use of a firearm, if indeed it ever was part of the original list of charges, was plea-bargained away. I'd like to see legislation to the effect that if ANYONE commits a crime in which a gun was involved, that that person gets an extra "X" number of years (ten) of incarceration tacked on to the end of his sentence. No exceptions, and every one of those years need to be served out before Mr. Prisoner is back on the street.

Second, quit the over-dramatizing and publicizing every "mass shooting" that comes down the pike. There has been lots of research done on this and it has been proven conclusively that such histrionics on the part of media encourages "copycat" crimes. The numbers vary, but I've seen statistics that show anywhere from 50% to 75% or more of these crimes, especially the ones that involve AR-15 - style firearms, are "copycat". Some disgruntled kid, or employee with an ax to grind decides that going out with a huge bang is preferable to the status quo, decides to off a bunch of people, and of course chooses the ONE weapon that media has anointed as the chief Satan: the AR-15. So he does--and media gets another huge plateful of red meat to sensationalize for weeks. What would the public reaction be if such shootings (or any shooting) were reported on the way media reports, say, the stock market fluctuations, or the weather? The REPORTING is still there, meaning that the public has access to the facts, but reporting is far different from sensationalizing.

Do these two things, and I'll guarantee you that crimes in which guns are used would fall dramatically.

Wonder how often a gun is used because it's convenient and the owner has less than the required grey matter!!!!!

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by La lamy

No individual should ever need a semi-automatic unless they are planning mass murder or fighting a war. There's a big difference between having a gun to protect yourself and killing masses of people.This should be addressed and legislated in my opinion.

And if there is massive unrest caused by Covid, fuel shortages, food shortages, or war (think Ukraine), climate change, etc., should people be allowed to defend themselves?

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by jebartle

Sooo, if not war related, or mass murder, one would ask, why own semi-automatic, obliterating watermelons maybe????

Because some people feel their right to blow up watermelons trumps children's right to go to school safely.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

And if there is massive unrest caused by Covid, fuel shortages, food shortages, or war (think Ukraine), climate change, etc., should people be allowed to defend themselves?

Let me know how your AR-15 does when the M1Abrams shows up.

[jebartle]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Because some people feel their right to blow up watermelons trumps children's right to go to school safely.

Amen!!!!!

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by NoMo50

Yes, words may have different interpretations today than in the 18th century. But, intelligent people can still decipher the intent of the framers. Two words in the 2nd Amendment continuously come under scrutiny: regulated and militia.

Some will try to argue that arms only belong in the hands of a militia, often defined as the armed forces or the National Guard. They also say arms must be tightly regulated, or controlled. But, in the context of 18th century usage, those terms meant something else entirely. The term militia referred to all able bodied males over the age of 16. In context, the word regulated meant "well stocked," or "properly outfitted." Knowing what our young country had lived through, it is simple to discern the intent of the Founding Fathers. They wanted to ensure that the citizenry would never again fall under the boot of a tyrant. Giving the people the absolute right to have the means to oppose an oppressive ruler was front and center in their minds.

There is a reason the 2nd Amendment was so high on the list, right below freedom of speech, the press, and religion. It exists to guarantee a means to enforce our bill of rights.

Interesting how so many fail to address the fact that there is a COMMA in the sentence. Seems to me that has a tendency to change the narrative somewhat. Personally, as former law enforcement I tend to read it as a Constitutional right for ALL citizens to own firearms, not just for National Defense but for personal defense. To be honest about it, the two are not that dissimilar.

[Blackbird45]

THE CONCORD HYMN (1st. Stanza) by Ralph Waldo Emerson:

"By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
 Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
 And fired the shot heard round the world."


April 19, 1775, and the majority of the American colonists had had enough. They were suffering under the oppression of a powerful government, a government that deigned to act "in the best interests" of the colonists without any input FROM the colonists. So these embattled farmers took on the soldiers of (at the time) the mightiest nation on the planet. They knew full well that what they were doing, in the view of the British crown, was treason. They knew that the penalty for treason was death. Their chances for success were probably slim and none.

But they took the stand. And in the end, a government was implemented that SERVED the people, not the other way around.

It would not have happened that way, had the colonists NOT been armed.

Every one of the founders had lived through that time, when the only way to throw off government oppression was through armed resistance. And I have absolutely no doubt that the 2nd Amendment, just like every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, was put there to protect the people from government overreach: in the case of the 2nd Amendment, for the express purpose of making sure the people, through force of arms if necessary, had the ability to resist oppression.[/QUOTE]

If you read my post more carefully you would have noticed was responding to a previous post below.

[QUOTE=ThirdOfFive;2117603]What movie would that be?

Every single right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is there to protect the citizens of America from government overreach. It would be illogical to think that just one (the 2nd. Amendment) was NOT there for that purpose.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Because some people feel their right to blow up watermelons trumps children's right to go to school safely.

Why do you feel there has to be an either/or? School safety should be physical security. Target shooting should never be illegal, and is no different than shooting hoops with a basketball, if done as a game/sport. One mentally ill person should not dictate the actions of the majority of law abiding citizens.
I understand some folks' fear of firearms. I get it. Being ignorant of a subject can cause fear. Those of us that have owned guns for decades, consider a firearm as a tool and do not fear them. To stop a person for killing someone due to DUI, you do not close down the bars and liquor stores and outlaw booze because of a minority of those that cannot handle liquor.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Why do you feel there has to be an either/or? School safety should be physical security. Target shooting should never be illegal, and is no different than shooting hoops with a basketball, if done as a game/sport. One mentally ill person should not dictate the actions of the majority of law abiding citizens.
I understand some folks' fear of firearms. I get it. Being ignorant of a subject can cause fear. Those of us that have owned guns for decades, consider a firearm as a tool and do not fear them. To stop a person for killing someone due to DUI, you do not close down the bars and liquor stores and outlaw booze because of a minority of those that cannot handle liquor.

I don't and my post was snarky. I apologize. It seems so many one liners, I thought maybe that is all some can focus on.

And uh, yes, we DO close the bars, there are operating hours.

And uh, yes, the AR-15 is just a tool that is the tool of choice for killing children in schools. Only HERE, no where else in the world (at our rate).

And no, removing all AR15's (can't be done) would not solve the problem, and I have NEVER advocated that. I would like it, but I know it is not possible. So, instead I am for things like universal background checks - n o responsible gun owner can come up with any explanation why they is bad - but many try with things like "the government has no rights to do that, I have a right to a gun". And so, for what 50 years now, we have been arguing while children die.

[rsimpson]

Originally Posted by NoMo50

Yes, words may have different interpretations today than in the 18th century. But, intelligent people can still decipher the intent of the framers. Two words in the 2nd Amendment continuously come under scrutiny: regulated and militia.

Some will try to argue that arms only belong in the hands of a militia, often defined as the armed forces or the National Guard. They also say arms must be tightly regulated, or controlled. But, in the context of 18th century usage, those terms meant something else entirely. The term militia referred to all able bodied males over the age of 16. In context, the word regulated meant "well stocked," or "properly outfitted." Knowing what our young country had lived through, it is simple to discern the intent of the Founding Fathers. They wanted to ensure that the citizenry would never again fall under the boot of a tyrant. Giving the people the absolute right to have the means to oppose an oppressive ruler was front and center in their minds.

There is a reason the 2nd Amendment was so high on the list, right below freedom of speech, the press, and religion. It exists to guarantee a means to enforce our bill of rights.

You are 100% correct, my friend.

[Reiver]

Originally Posted by Blackbird45

This notion that armed citizens can stop this government if it becomes tyrannical is a joke and something from a Hollywood movie. You show up with a gun the ruler shows up with a drone. You kill one of theirs they take out your entire block. The war in Ukraine is a perfect example, even with what weapons they had they had to reach out for more. Who do you think will come to our help if we end up in a revolution.

Let me see if I understand you..
You don't want us to have guns, so that the government doesn't have to kill us and a few hundred innocent people to impose their will?
YOU are the one who scares me.. not the gun owners.