Should the 2nd amendment (Right to Bear Arms) be Abolished?

**mikekerrIII** · 01-08-2013, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by dupont2005

Well then, even more proof civilians don't need semi-auto AK47's and MP5's

I shoot match with a semi-auto rifle that makes either of them look like toys. There is a whole competition category called Nation Match that has been doing so for about a hundred years. Semi-auto, Military origin and more powerful than assault weapon and was completely legal under the so called assault weapons ban

**dupont2005** · 01-08-2013, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by mikekerrIII

I shoot match with a semi-auto rifle that makes either of them look like toys. There is a whole competition category called Nation Match that has been doing so for about a hundred years. Semi-auto, Military origin and more powerful than assault weapon and was completely legal under the so called assault weapons ban

But nobody match shoots with an AK-47 or MP5 do they?

**dupont2005** · 01-08-2013, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by mikekerrIII

Parking tickets are law enforcement, a pure goverment function

Performing weddings is like selling a fishing license something that store clerks can do even though the licenses are government documents.

There is nothing in the first amendment regarding store clerks though

**Valerie** · 01-08-2013, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by Kees_L

O. So that's how a civilisation would work? Grant citizens enough assault weapons to keep 'em satisfied amongst themselves and then let them be to rule the country?

Why didn't the rest of the world ever think of that for an idea one wonders.

I said nothing about granting any type of firearm. There is a huge difference between the government granting people firearms, and the government simply deciding to not interfere when a person who's a proven law-abiding citizen wants to purchase a gun with his or her own money, or decides to buy a new television instead. Civilization works quite efficiently when the government doesn't interfere too much in the lives of good people. And yes, the citizens should rule the country. It's called being a representative republic, or any other type of government in which the citizens choose representatives and can vote on referenda. Furthermore, since we pay taxes, our politicians are our employees. (And yes, I wish they in general would remember that.)

**stelok** · 01-08-2013, 10:29 PM

I support the right to arm bears.

**Kees_L** · 01-08-2013, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by Valerie

I said nothing about granting any type of firearm.

You didn't? I got a different impression.

Originally Posted by Valerie

There is a huge difference between the government granting people firearms, and the government simply deciding to not interfere when a person who's a proven law-abiding citizen wants to purchase a gun with his or her own money, or decides to buy a new television instead.

Is that so?
I think I'm generally okay with treating either the military or law enforcement and government and citizens differently.
Like on the subject of public safety or the right to arms.
Because any citizen having need or use for arms would come to be able to get granted such, but never too automatically or gratituously.
And furthermore could citizens or whoever be mindful or active regarding any situation regarding any loaded weapon, really as being such. Like how the loadedness of any gun at any time would be what would matter most.
Whereas making such into a basic right for just anyone would seem most weird to me, as well as most volatile, as threatening safety more rather than warranting it of itself.
And distrust to government when government would be working for the public would seem equally ludicrous or unneeded.

Originally Posted by Valerie

Civilization works quite efficiently when the government doesn't interfere too much in the lives of good people. And yes, the citizens should rule the country. It's called being a representative republic, or any other type of government in which the citizens choose representatives and can vote on referenda. Furthermore, since we pay taxes, our politicians are our employees. (And yes, I wish they in general would remember that.)

We have all that in Europe too, as we practically invented that. Which any right to arms for citizens basically has nothing to do with.
So I really don't see any of your points as being anything sensible or to agree with. I do not see what you would feel to be contributing here really.

**Addams** · 01-09-2013, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by stelok

I support the right to arm bears.

They should wear armor like this polar bear in the golden compass.

Freaking cool if you ask me.

**Iangould** · 01-09-2013, 03:33 AM

Apparently some "decent law-abiding" gun-owners in Colorado feel the best way to show how decent and law-abiding they are is to break the law.

As Colorado’s legislature opens Wednesday with Democrats back in control of both the state House and Senate and seeking to pursue several gun control proposals, gun enthusiasts are set to hold a large rally just outside the Capitol that’s sure to draw a lot of media attention.
Organized by a group called “Guns for Everyone”, the rally is likely to draw some gun enthusiasts who are carrying weapons in Veteran’s Park, the rally site just across Lincoln Avenue from the Capitol.
That would be a violation of a city ordinance.
“The main focus of the rally is gun freedom, but Guns for Everyone is a strong supporter
of anything freedom, so this is more about freedom than simply guns,” says the group’s Facebook page advertising the event.
A number of people planning to attend the event have commented on the thread, which includes pictures of those who’ve made signs for the rally and inquiries from those curious about how long the event will last and who will be speaking.
A post by Neal Pashman underlines the enthusiasm of many attendees — and why Denver Police are likely to keep a close eye on the event.
“WE SHOULD BE OPENLY CARRYING OUR HIGH CAPACITY CAPABLE, SEMI -AUTO RIFLES AND HANDGUNS! LET THOUSANDS OF US SHOW UP WITH LOADED WEAPONS!!!!” Pashman writes, using all caps.

“PUT THE FEAR OF GOD INTO THE POLICE AND THE LEGISLATURE, AND THAT SCUMBAG GOVERNOR!! LET THEM KNOW WHAT WOULD COME NEXT!!! GIVE THEM A WARNING THEY WILL NEVER FORGET!!!

**Iangould** · 01-09-2013, 03:39 AM

Originally Posted by finfangfool

How can anyone think that an idea like that is going to end in anything other than disaster? I know the guy's a self-aggrandizing racist blowhard, but surely to get to his position in life he must know it's not a good idea to round up a volunteer posse to patrol public grounds, especially when he'll be legally and financially responsible when the inevitable occurs?

You know his Department has already been repeatedly been successfully sued for violating inmates rights and for unlawful deaths? Sheriff Joe just blamed it on weak-kneed liberals who got all upset 'cause a few wetbacks might have died in his jail because they were denied medical treatment - and got re-elected. He's already cost his country millions - and that's not even counting the hundreds of thousands one of his deputies conned them out of.

**Iangould** · 01-09-2013, 03:44 AM

Originally Posted by Valerie

I said nothing about granting any type of firearm. There is a huge difference between the government granting people firearms, and the government simply deciding to not interfere when a person who's a proven law-abiding citizen wants to purchase a gun with his or her own money, or decides to buy a new television instead. Civilization works quite efficiently when the government doesn't interfere too much in the lives of good people. And yes, the citizens should rule the country. It's called being a representative republic, or any other type of government in which the citizens choose representatives and can vote on referenda. Furthermore, since we pay taxes, our politicians are our employees. (And yes, I wish they in general would remember that.)

So basically what you're saying is Australians, Canadians, Britons etc are less civilized than you are?

**finfangfool** · 01-09-2013, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by Iangould

You know his Department has already been repeatedly been successfully sued for violating inmates rights and for unlawful deaths? Sheriff Joe just blamed it on weak-kneed liberals who got all upset 'cause a few wetbacks might have died in his jail because they were denied medical treatment - and got re-elected. He's already cost his country millions - and that's not even counting the hundreds of thousands one of his deputies conned them out of.

I did not know that, I see stories about him every couple of months but usually it's a tiny story about some initiative targeting "illegals". I didn't know he'd caused deaths.

**finfangfool** · 01-09-2013, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by Valerie

In self defence and law enforcement situations, the purpose of the firearm even there is not necessarily to kill, but simply to stop the criminal. If you shop for a handgun for self-defence, you'll hear about "stopping power," not killing power. Yes, killing will stop a criminal, but most of the time when firearms are used in such situations, it's unnecessary to go for the kill. A criminal can be stopped without being killed, as Nidal Hassan was, but the vast majority of times when a firearm is used in law enforcement or personal defence, just drawing the gun is enough to stop the criminal.

Bear in mind that, while the husband and kids shoot rifles, I prefer not to. The rifle is not a good firearm for me, and we don't see any need to purchase more rifles. So, no, we don't have any AR15's. But there is a great deal of information circulating about supposed assault rifles.

Here are some actual facts about the Armalite Rifle, aka, the AR15. http://www.nssf.org/MSR/facts.cfm

"Stopping power"? Really? That's absolutely fantastic for a highly trained soldier or spy (though I'd say it's not a 100% thing for them, especially in the heat of the moment) but it's a ridiculous notion when applied to your average citizen when under the kind of threat that would justify the use of a firearm.