- Joined
- Oct 17, 2016
- Messages
- 710
Again an act of complacency. Seems to the byproduct of over pampered entitled society. A dangerous one.
United States & Gun Control discussion.
- Thread starter Diamondback 2/2
- Start date
Again an act of complacency. Seems to the byproduct of over pampered entitled society. A dangerous one.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
What it means today is the same thing it meant when it was written. That the people have the right to own firearms because the State will need to raise a militia to fight something. In addition, to make the government fearful of it's people so that it did not overstep. The Constitution is a limit on Government rather than rights guaranteed to us.
The time, technology, and context of when that was written has changed. The country as we know it didn't exist when that was written- or, if you want to be real precise, the country was 11 years old. Blacks weren't technically human, women couldn't read or vote, and we were busy burning people alive for practicing magic. It was a weird time.
Before everyone gets their respective undergarments in a bunch, I think the right to bear arms is one of the fundamental principles of our way of life and I would never seek to remove it from the Constitution.
Never questioning a document written 200 years ago as if it applies unquestioningly to today's environment despite mounds of evidence to the contrary and calling that 'patriotism' isn't a great plan either. Maybe we can leave the 2nd just the way it's written, but enact legislature that applies restrictions more reasonably to today's society.
J.S.
Unverified
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
- Messages
- 86
@Red Flag 1 's posts in this thread are some of the most informative things that I've read in a while. They really show why this forum is such a good resource for students like me, I'm always learning from members here.
I recently watched a video on Randy Stair, a Pennsylvania man who shot three people in a supermarket. The dude was batshit crazy, believed that he would be reincarnated as a transgender ghost based on an animated children's show. He posted loads of videos online idolizing the Columbine killers and stating his own desire to perpetrate a similar massacre. Similar theme with shooters like the Parkland killer who often flood social media with their intentions before they commit the act.
I'm interested in hearing from members here (especially law enforcement), how do you propose rooting out and dealing with people like this before the threat materializes? I read about the FBI's alleged mishandling of the Parkland killer, are there any new laws and systems that would cut down on negligence in this area?
I recently watched a video on Randy Stair, a Pennsylvania man who shot three people in a supermarket. The dude was batshit crazy, believed that he would be reincarnated as a transgender ghost based on an animated children's show. He posted loads of videos online idolizing the Columbine killers and stating his own desire to perpetrate a similar massacre. Similar theme with shooters like the Parkland killer who often flood social media with their intentions before they commit the act.
I'm interested in hearing from members here (especially law enforcement), how do you propose rooting out and dealing with people like this before the threat materializes? I read about the FBI's alleged mishandling of the Parkland killer, are there any new laws and systems that would cut down on negligence in this area?
So we're changing the 2nd Amendment? If we're going to alter it through legislation, then do it the right way and change/ amend the Constitution. Passing all sorts of laws undermines the document.
The problem is that the odds of Congress and the states gathering enough votes are astronomical and that's even assuming any legislator will have the backbone to request a change.
Using laws to alter the Constitution is a dangerous path. It certainly has precedent after precendet, but it erodes the document that makes America a country.
I absolutely HATE the military weapons argument. Almost EVERY firearm action originated for military use, all the way back to flint lock and even the revered "Grandpa's" old lever gun. Any AR variant is as much a military firearm as a high end hunting Browning BAR. Machine guns existed when the 2A was written and so on.
Everyone focuses on the scary black guns, instead of the system that has failed society on multiple levels. No one is really owning up to their faults and redirecting blame.
Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆
Verified Military
To them is the perceived quickest fix. Like slapping a bandaid on a paper cut when you have a sucking chest wound to attend to.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
There are over 271 federal statutes on firearms, let's enforce them before we talk about new ones. That doesn't include the thousands of different State Firearms Laws.
The Left/Democrats/Liberals often parrot the same bullshit about gunshow/internet sales which are false. Majority of States do not regulate P2P sales. We already have what are considered reasonable restrictions. What California has enacted is what I would call unreasonable restrictions and I question their constitutionality. Define reasonable restriction, pretty sure we've got reasonable regulations throughout. Especially considering all of the misinformation being spread by liberal news outlets.
California is worse than Canuckistan wrt to gun laws, just let that sink in.
Red Flag 1
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 7,580
Last edited:
So, no, we should not alter the 2nd in any way as it’s written, and I agree with the rest of your post as far as passing laws and undermining the core document.
The second anyone talks about actually examining the core document and -without undermining the intent of what the founders intended- enacting appropriate legislation because we are 2 centuries past the drafting, the usual response is something like “Nope! It’s already too regulated it should be less regulated don’t change a letter and we aren’t even talking about this, you’re not a good American/you don’t understand the constitution.”
I am firmly on the side of ‘don’t tell me what I can and can’t buy’. Now, when people start folding their tin foil hats, saying the government could become tyrannical and enslave the people so they need armor piercing rounds meant to defeat body armor that our police officers wear, silencers, bump stocks to make their weapons fully automatic, NVGs... there has to be some line where we can at least have the conversation. When you put yourself in the camp of ‘don’t restrict it at all, as a matter of fact, I want less restriction than we have neow’, you’re forced to accept certain 2nd and 3rd order effects.
I would certainly like to restrict the ability of terror cells to train and equip themselves better than the federal agencies meant to prevent them from doing so. I’m pretty sure the founders didn’t have the vision to foresee American citizens purchasing assault weapons legally with the intent to commit the mass murder of other Americans; but that’s the world we live in now.
Re: states rights (Cali and so on)- it’s sort of a weird argument to me when a state makes their own regulations, those regulations aren’t found to be unconstitutional, and people still say the government should make them change. I feel as if the argument is saying, “I want strip this state of it’s rights granted by the constitution, and I am going to use an article in the constitution to do so.’ That’s obviously an oversimplification, but it’s because I’m not a constitutional lawyer. Or smart.
Anyway, the conversation isn’t sacrosanct and the topic of the 2nd Amendment (the constitution as a whole) shouldn’t be regarded as some holy text that’s infallible and completely immune from examination. That’s all I’m saying.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
So DC Vs Heller is the Law based upon Judicial review. That means a state cannot restrict my access to firearms. The Second Amendment is not a State's right that can be regulated at the State Level. When I see how concealed carry permits have been issued in CA for a very long time...better have donated to the Sheriff's campaign or actually not have a reason apparently. Then I take issue.
Machine Guns and Assault Weapons by extension have been banned since 1934. Can you convert an AR to select fire? Yes, but the reality is that a .223 is basically a varmint gun. It's not much bigger than most use for varminting. Terror Cells will equip themselves without regard to laws. Enforce the statutes that are on the books, follow your procedures, run towards the gunfire to stop the purp. Amending the constitution was meant to be difficult for a reason.
Do we want to live in a relatively free and open society? Because if we do, then there are risks involved. I'm not saying become numb to stuff. But Terrorist Attacks and Murders are the norm, and when you put the "mass" shootings on the aggregate and compare to a similar sample size, are we really suffering attacks at a greater rate compared to our population size or are we pretty close? At some point this new background check crap on ammunition will hit the supreme court and get overturned with the current crop of judges sitting the bench.
And the crap about a Tyrannical government isn't crap. As you know well and good we fought a war against our former nation because the Parliament refused to grant us representation and then the King enforced his taxation with an deployment of Soldiers to Occupy Boston.
@ThunderHorse - is it a logical, real possibility (for you) that the government of the United States of America can/will disarm 300 million Americans?
If yes; do you also believe that militias of American citizens will need to overthrow that government?
What do you feel the likelihood of that event would be? Say, ‘very likely’? Or ‘not likely, but possible’?
If yes; do you also believe that militias of American citizens will need to overthrow that government?
What do you feel the likelihood of that event would be? Say, ‘very likely’? Or ‘not likely, but possible’?
Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆
Verified Military
Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆
Verified Military
Sums it up...
No worries. Press.
Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆
Verified Military
To think that our already over reaching, corrupt political class wouldn’t/couldn’t start to erode our rights when we give up the one that protects the rights we have is absurd. All in the name of what they think is best for us?
Complacency Is a killer.
Complacency Is a killer.
Can you explain what you mean when you say that the right to bear arms protects the rest of the constitution? I know what you mean in theory, but what about practice?
What realistic scenario would be a trigger for you to take up arms agains the American government?
Complacency does kill. But I don’t have an asteroid shelter- that’s not me being complacent about an asteroid strike, that’s me being reasonable about the likelihood of that event happening and living my life accordingly.
I guess I’d ask the same question to you-do you think, in the context of today’s environment, that the 2nd amendment could ever be repealed and that the government would actually try to disarm American citizens? If yes, why?
Similar threads
