Democrats Back Down on Assault Weapons Ban!

[Mott the Hoople]

I think we should give assault weapons to everyone, especially children.

Don't you think that would present a problem during nap time?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Who wear bullet proof vests and drive police cars.

and listen to Rap music.

 

[ImaTanArmyMan]

In the first place, if some one gets their jollies by ripping off a belt of M-60 just for shits and giggle, and has the means (ammo ain't cheap) to do so, what harm is he doing to anyone else in doing so? Putting holes in paper through the challenges of marksmanship is a valid purpose of any and all firearms, with each type, from muzzle-loader to bolt action to semi-auto, to full auto, having its own unique characteristics and challenges.

You want "reasonable" (by YOUR totalitarian definition) restraints to make you feel safe, then restrain yourself. Go fucking hide in a deep hole and pull a cover over your head. You'll be safe enough. Meanwhile, leave people who enjoy firearms, and the Constitution alone.

Second, there is a reason the 2nd Amendment was worded the way it is. There is a reason they included the phrase "being necessary to a free state", and it was NOT so people can hunt or protect themselves from criminals. It is for the security of a FREE STATE - meaning THE PEOPLE (as declared in the 2nd Amendment) protect our freedoms, if need be by violent revolution against the excesses of a run away government. It is UN-reasonable to expect a government to stay within the constitutional boundaries laid out for it if you give them overbearing military authority by limiting the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Suppose that weapon is stolen or used in a crime? Suppose that someone does not have the intention of using it "just for jollies"? I'm not opposed to owning firearms, but there is zero justification for owning military style assault rifles. Basing your justification of owning military firearms on their recreational potential is retarded. I'm sure it's fun and challenging to use artillery, does that mean it's a good idea that anyone owns it? You can protect yourself and property just fine with civilian model firearms.

Interesting you choose to make the wording argument of the second amendment, considering it also says "a well regulated militia" which had a very specific meaning at that time (i.e. not simply private citizens but actual militia troops mustered into service as their states military forces). If you want to join the National Guard and possess military style weapons, ok good for you do it. Unless you're actually being watched though (or "well regulated"), then no you don't need military style weapons.

I'm sure you would be cop killers and domestic terrorists are really going to go far with this whole sell M60's at Wal-Mart movement. That's basically your argument, that you'd possibly need to murder both of these types of people if you consider the government too oppressive.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Suppose that weapon is stolen or used in a crime? Suppose that someone does not have the intention of using it "just for jollies"? I'm not opposed to owning firearms, but there is zero justification for owning military style assault rifles. Basing your justification of owning military firearms on their recreational potential is retarded. I'm sure it's fun and challenging to use artillery, does that mean it's a good idea that anyone owns it? You can protect yourself and property just fine with civilian model firearms.

you do realize that 'military style' weapons use the same caliber of bullets that most civilian style weapons use? With that in mind, are you really trying to say that the 'look' of a weapon makes it more dangerous?

Interesting you choose to make the wording argument of the second amendment, considering it also says "a well regulated militia" which had a very specific meaning at that time (i.e. not simply private citizens but actual militia troops mustered into service as their states military forces).

you are so wrong on this that it's pathetic. 'well-regulated' did not mean government organized or 'watched'.

If you want to join the National Guard and possess military style weapons, ok good for you do it. Unless you're actually being watched though (or "well regulated"), then no you don't need military style weapons.

news flash for you. the weapons that you use in the national guard belong to the federal government. they are not possessed by the members of the guard.

I'm sure you would be cop killers and domestic terrorists are really going to go far with this whole sell M60's at Wal-Mart movement. That's basically your argument, that you'd possibly need to murder both of these types of people if you consider the government too oppressive.

yes, it is our argument. It also happened to be the same argument that George Washington, James Madison, Patrick Henry, George Mason, and a host of other founders of this nation.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

That's what I was wondering. Duck hunting, maybe?

Look,I'm no constitutional scholar but I do believe that the second ammendment was intended so that we, as private citizens, would have access to firearms for sport, sustenance and personal defense against criminals, tyrants and others who intend to do us personal harm and so that we could organize "Well Regulated Militias" for the public defense and safety. I don't think it was intended so that the private citizens could collect millitary style weapons for their own personal armies or militias.

My concern with military style weapons is the harm that can occur when unstable persons, psycophaths or criminals have ready access to them. This is a serious public safety issue.

Militia is not the regular standing army though, its an impromptu fighting force of free and concerned citizens.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Again, that's "Well Regulated Militia". It's a tough sell to me that this term in the second amendment did not mean some form of governmental control. State, Territorial, or even Federal. I think it would be a stretch to say that the second amendment advocates private militia's or armies. Where I come from we have a name for those. We call them gangs.

Now I don't agree with the argument that the second amendment is mutually exclusive to a "well regulated militia" but was meant in conjunction with private ownership of arms.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Again, that's "Well Regulated Militia". It's a tough sell to me that this term in the second amendment did not mean some form of governmental control. State, Territorial, or even Federal. I think it would be a stretch to say that the second amendment advocates private militia's or armies. Where I come from we have a name for those. We call them gangs.

Now I don't agree with the argument that the second amendment is mutually exclusive to a "well regulated militia" but was meant in conjunction with private ownership of arms.

The entire bill of rights goes to the people, not the government. It was meant "in conjuction with private ownership of firearms."

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Again, that's "Well Regulated Militia". It's a tough sell to me that this term in the second amendment did not mean some form of governmental control. State, Territorial, or even Federal. I think it would be a stretch to say that the second amendment advocates private militia's or armies. Where I come from we have a name for those. We call them gangs.

Now I don't agree with the argument that the second amendment is mutually exclusive to a "well regulated militia" but was meant in conjunction with private ownership of arms.

Then you seriously need to study the constitution, bill of rights, federalist and non-federalist papers, as well as the constitutional debates.

'well regulated' in the 17th and 18th century meant well trained and working. Even now in England, if you were to take something to a repair shop and ask them to 'regulate' it, they would bring it to a smooth, balanced, and properly functioning state.

The founders, having felt firsthand the tyranny and oppression that a standing army was capable of upon orders from the king, felt that ONLY a well functioning and armed populace had the security and liberty of a free state in its best interests. Not that they felt they could do better than a standing army, but that a standing army, while necessary, was a bane to liberty. Therefore, they sought to protect the peoples right to keep and bear arms in the interests of freedom from that oppression.

The mere idea that a bill of rights would hold 9 amendments protecting inalienable rights of individuals while preserving the right of government agents to possess and carry firearms, in spite of their experience with standing armies, is ludicrous at best.

Furthermore, Art. 1, sec 10, clause 3 of the constitution says:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So, if states are not allowed troops, militia is defined as part of the able bodied populace, and the framers intent was to have the populace as well armed or better than the standing military of the central government, it could only stand to reason that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect and preserve the rights of civilians to keep and bear arms that any individual soldier would be issued by the central government.

 

[a11n]

Kill the fox?

Do nothing, it's not your problem, its some guys you heardly even know.

 

[Good Luck]

Suppose that weapon is stolen or used in a crime? Suppose that someone does not have the intention of using it "just for jollies"? I'm not opposed to owning firearms, but there is zero justification for owning military style assault rifles. Basing your justification of owning military firearms on their recreational potential is retarded. I'm sure it's fun and challenging to use artillery, does that mean it's a good idea that anyone owns it? You can protect yourself and property just fine with civilian model firearms.

Interesting you choose to make the wording argument of the second amendment, considering it also says "a well regulated militia" which had a very specific meaning at that time (i.e. not simply private citizens but actual militia troops mustered into service as their states military forces). If you want to join the National Guard and possess military style weapons, ok good for you do it. Unless you're actually being watched though (or "well regulated"), then no you don't need military style weapons.

I'm sure you would be cop killers and domestic terrorists are really going to go far with this whole sell M60's at Wal-Mart movement. That's basically your argument, that you'd possibly need to murder both of these types of people if you consider the government too oppressive.

Your arguments are typical of those who have zero understanding of history, and even less understanding of freedom. Do you study hard to be this ignorant, or is it a gift?

Point one: a free society does not limit the rights of its citizens in order to control the potential for criminal behavior. Do you propose tossing people in jail just in case they may someday shoplift something? Of course not. Yet you defend limiting the 2nd amendment to firearms YOU approve of just in case some firearm you do NOT approve of could be used in a crime. You CLAIM to not oppose ownership of firearms but the argument you use against the ones you don't like are being used to limit the rights of ownership to even the most basic of firearms. The argument is bullshit against ALL firearms. You have nothing to fear from law abiding citizens ownership of ANY firearm. And criminals who intend to use a firearm for criminal purposes don't fucking care if a firearm is not legal to own.

There are all kinds of justifications for owning "military style" firearms. If I think they are just plain fun to use, who the fuck are YOU, you totalitarian pile of bovine excrement, to tell me that is not a "justified" use? Shove your "zero justification" up your well-used totalitarian ass.

But when push comes to shove, it was not for fun, not for hunting, and not for personal defense that the 2nd amendment was put in the Constitution. It was to give the people the right - and ability - to oppose tyranny in their own government. Anyone who denies this basic fact has never read their history. There are literally hundreds of quotes available from those who wrote the bill of rights that shows what their intent was.

Let's take a look, phrase by phrase, of what was intended by the 2nd amendment. To understand a complex sentence, the first thing to do is examine the independent clause of the sentence, for that is the focus of the meaning. The only independent clause in the 2nd amendment is "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Very clear. It is a right of the people, and it shall not be infringed. What do people have so much trouble understanding something so openly and directly stated? (Because they don't LIKE people having that right and want to control it.)

Now let's look at the dependent, modifying clauses, for they were not included without reason. First modifying phrase "A well regulated militia" indicates what the design of the 2nd amendment is. But unlike you big mommy government wash your ears and tuck you in bed types, well regulated has nothing to do with government oversight. "Well regulated militia" means fully provisioned and trained. They want a fully provisioned and trained militia.

But who is the militia. The totalitarians want to claim militia is the state national guards. Sorry, but that is dead wrong, as is proven by the rest of the 2nd amendment (specifically the term "the people")

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

There are many, many more quotes available from those who wrote and supported the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights. It is quite clear that the term militia - at that time - was the people themselves. By the definitions of the 1780s, the states' National Guards are standing armies - ESPECIALLY since they fall under federal authority at any time the federal government thinks it appropriate. The founders did not trust the establishment of standing armies - it's why they require the repeated acts of congress each congressional session to keep them running. Their answer to a standing army is to have the people be as well provisioned.

Now we get to the phrase "being necessary to a free state". This explains why they want the right to remain with the people. Because freedom, ultimately, is the duty and responsibility of the people to defend. Anyone who thinks it is the GOVERNMENT's job to defend freedom is imbibing too many high potency mind altering chemicals. GOVERNMENT will take your freedoms away - as is proven by the incursions into constitutional protections by the previous administration (incursions that have NOT been refuted by the current administration, as was promised.)

The founders, rightfully, did not trust government - even one they themselves designed - to remain free of the corruption of power. That is why the entire BOR was written - to assure the basic rights of the people were stated and protected. But how is the BOR to be enforced unless one of the rights of the people give them the authority, if it becomes necessary, to enforce those rights? THAT is the WHY of the 2nd Amendment. It is necessary to freedom for the people to retain the right to keep and bear the arms of a governments' standing army, so that they maintain the same authority of force that the government has.

Therefore, what the 2nd amendment defines is a right essential to maintaining a free state, and in order to maintain that free state, the people's right to keep and bear arms must match, or exceed, that of a well provisioned standing army.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

We will never be disarmed. This is the line in the sand. Bring it on, fascists. Let's go. It's gonna have to be the hard way.

 

[Cancel3]

Why do you need an assault rifle? What is the purpose?

This is something that always bothers me. Gun owners are supposed to justify what they own, and yet no one must justify anything else.

Why do you need your own car? Public transportation would be better for all.

Why do you need air conditioning? Not having it would cut down on pollutants and more.

Why do you need that computer you have? Couldn't you do just as well with going to the public library and using that one? A computer takes as much as 10 times its weight in oil to produce.




When the government requires that we show a need before we enjoy a freedom, the freedom is long gone.

 

[Cancel3]

There was a guy who had a fox, a chicken, and a bag of grain. He gad to cross over a river to get back home, but he could only take the fox, the grain,or the chicken, Well, if you leave the chicken and the fox on one side of the river while taking the bag of grain across, the fox will eat the chicken. Same thing with the chicken and the grain, you can't leave those two alone or the chicken will eat the grain. how do you get them all across the river safely?

Take chicken over. Go back and get the grain, take it over and bring the chicken back. Take the fox over leaving the chicken behind, then go get the chicken.

Or skin the fox, roast the chicken and grind the corn down to make bread.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Again, that's "Well Regulated Militia". It's a tough sell to me that this term in the second amendment did not mean some form of governmental control.

L.O.L.