What was the purpose of the Second Amendment?

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Not adding to the discussion does nothing to open up the minds of others to your points and certainly does nothing to help drive the discussions. Both of you sons a bitches have thoughts (Maybe Grizza doesn't) so sharing them can do no harm in the debate.

I cannot get into any discussions this week. I am just brain dead and any time that I try to make a thought and put it down on paper it will either make no sense or be some ramblings about how this and that something or other.

My stance is the way it already is. Full auto weapons need a permit, as does CCP. Felons get no sympathy from me, no weapons for you.

If someone is going to commit a crime, be it robbery-home invasion-assault-menacing-whatever, they will use what they can get. A hammer, a stick, a rake, a knife, a sword. Once the government takes away a liberity it will never come back. PERIOD!

That wasn't so bad. There was some cogency in it.

[grizzaholic]

I cannot get into any discussions this week. I am just brain dead and any time that I try to make a thought and put it down on paper it will either make no sense or be some ramblings about how this and that something or other.

My stance is the way it already is. Full auto weapons need a permit, as does CCP. Felons get no sympathy from me, no weapons for you.

If someone is going to commit a crime, be it robbery-home invasion-assault-menacing-whatever, they will use what they can get. A hammer, a stick, a rake, a knife, a sword. Once the government takes away a liberity it will never come back. PERIOD!

That wasn't so bad. There was some cogency in it.

Go to the morning boys thread and read my response to dback.

[Grizalltheway]

That wasn't so bad. There was some cogency in it.

Go to the morning boys thread and read my response to dback.

Either way, there's no way anything you write will be as bad as some of WR's ADD fueled ramblings. Goddamn kickers.

[JMU DJ]

Why don't we get the "Ask Jeeves [bot]s" opinion?

I have no problem with responsible people owning a reasonable amount of fire arms.... now, when it comes to fire arms that could chop down a tree or are just absurd to own for "hunting" or "personal use," I'm fine with regulations on these weapons.



As to the purpose of the amendment? There's plenty of colonial commentary about the individuals right to bear arms in order to defend themselves or their state. Also commentary on their right to bear arms in order to hunt game.

[Appaholic]

Not adding to the discussion does nothing to open up the minds of others to your points and certainly does nothing to help drive the discussions. Both of you sons a bitches have thoughts (Maybe Grizza doesn't) so sharing them can do no harm in the debate.

I cannot get into any discussions this week. I am just brain dead and any time that I try to make a thought and put it down on paper it will either make no sense or be some ramblings about how this and that something or other.

My stance is the way it already is. Full auto weapons need a permit, as does CCP. Felons get no sympathy from me, no weapons for you.

If someone is going to commit a crime, be it robbery-home invasion-assault-menacing-whatever, they will use what they can get. A hammer, a stick, a rake, a knife, a sword. Once the government takes away a liberity it will never come back. PERIOD!

Oh, just shut up....you talk too much....

[ASUMountaineer]

Griz, I think I might join you. Though, I will add one little bit, I agree with those who said the 2nd Amendment was placed in the Constitution for the populace to protect themselves from the government (amongst other threats).

I totally agree with that but it is not just the government. Any person has a right to protect themselves against any threat, that is not even up for debatable in my view. Some people want to cause harm on the individual level to others for their own gains and you must have the right to protect yourself. Now on the larger scale we need to protect ourselves against a government that can do us harm if we give away too much power.

You're right, and that's why I added (amongst other threats). To UAH and Dback, I will respond. I agree with pretty much what Appa and UAH have provided.

As I've said before, I believe the Constitution exists to guarantee our inalienable rights (that's the purpose of the government)--insuring our inalienable rights are maintained.

I do not own any guns, though I have shot quite a few. Not really into the hunting scene, been a few times. Growing up my dad had multiple guns. I have thought many times about purchasing one, simply for protection, but haven't as of yet. However, that does not change the fact that I defend an individual's right to own a firearm.

I think it is clear in the Constitution that it is an inalienable right that is protected. Do I have an inalienable right to own an automatic weapon, designed specifically for taking human life in a war type setting? Possibly not, I can see how one could think it is protected.

Ultimately, I always fear an ever increasing, powerful government, and severely limiting the inalienable right of individual gun ownership is the easiest way for the government to secure it's domination. For that reason alone, I feel the 2nd Amendment should always be enforced, in that individuals do have an inalienable right to own firearms.

[bobbythekidd]

If the purpose of the amendment was meant to protect the citizens from it's Government if they got out of hand; wouldn't that mean that automatic weapons would be included? A government would have a standing Army, right? It is logical to assume the Army would have the best weapons of the period.Therefore the framers wanted the citizens to have the ability to defend themselves on a level field.

To say otherwise, or talk of gun control, is saying the framers thought we could have swords, but only the Army could own muskets.

[Appaholic]

If the purpose of the amendment was meant to protect the citizens from it's Government if they got out of hand; wouldn't that mean that automatic weapons would be included? A government would have a standing Army, right? It is logical to assume the Army would have the best weapons of the period.Therefore the framers wanted the citizens to have the ability to defend themselves on a level field.

To say otherwise, or talk of gun control, is saying the framers thought we could have swords, but only the Army could own muskets.

I want nukes....

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

If the purpose of the amendment was meant to protect the citizens from it's Government if they got out of hand; wouldn't that mean that automatic weapons would be included? A government would have a standing Army, right? It is logical to assume the Army would have the best weapons of the period.Therefore the framers wanted the citizens to have the ability to defend themselves on a level field.

To say otherwise, or talk of gun control, is saying the framers thought we could have swords, but only the Army could own muskets.

btk I didn't have time to put this in earlier after I saw JMU DJ's post but that is exactly what I was thinking as well. Good post and I hope you will join me in stopping Appaholic from ever attaining nuclear capability. We can not allow a loose cannon like Appamadinejad to have this weapon.

[dbackjon]

If the purpose of the amendment was meant to protect the citizens from it's Government if they got out of hand; wouldn't that mean that automatic weapons would be included? A government would have a standing Army, right? It is logical to assume the Army would have the best weapons of the period.Therefore the framers wanted the citizens to have the ability to defend themselves on a level field.

To say otherwise, or talk of gun control, is saying the framers thought we could have swords, but only the Army could own muskets.

FINALLY!!

The direction I was headed.

If I need to protect myself against the government, shouldn't I be allowed to attach a SAM launcher with the latest SAMs to my SUV?

[Wedgebuster]

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

If the purpose of the amendment was meant to protect the citizens from it's Government if they got out of hand; wouldn't that mean that automatic weapons would be included? A government would have a standing Army, right? It is logical to assume the Army would have the best weapons of the period.Therefore the framers wanted the citizens to have the ability to defend themselves on a level field.

To say otherwise, or talk of gun control, is saying the framers thought we could have swords, but only the Army could own muskets.

FINALLY!!

The direction I was headed.

If I need to protect myself against the government, shouldn't I be allowed to attach a SAM launcher with the latest SAMs to my SUV?

I knew where you were trying to direct us so that you could make an over the top statement like that. I agree with you and will be putting aside some money to buy mine as well.

The thing is this...we need our little weapons to be able to stand a chance in hell against an oppressive goveernment. Once a few victories are had we will acquire the weapons which were rightfully purchased by us in the first place to take over more and more of the government holdings and weapons cache's. I have a battle plan that could use some tweaking yet but I am working on it.

A thief is not likely to break into a home that is armed knowingly. The same can be said of any other entity, a well armed populace is a good deterent to government oppression .

[dbackjon]

You know that I am not anti-weapon. Hunting Rifles, Handguns, etc. No problems. But where do you draw the line?

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

You know that I am not anti-weapon. Hunting Rifles, Handguns, etc. No problems. But where do you draw the line?

It's already drawn jon and I don't have a big problem with where it is now. I also don't have a problem with automatic weapons for those that are deemed responsible enough by a majority of people in our country. In other words, here are the tests you have to pass and the hoops that you need to jump through if you want to own Weapon X. A relative of mine has a .50 cal and there is no reason he shouldn't be able to own it. My point is simply that we have had trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting a lot of folks without nearly as much access to weaponry as our fighting forces has so it is not absolutely necessary to have the newest and best technology that our government has to be able to put up a strong resistance. I don't have a problem with the way things are right now and I also don't have a problem with it expanding to include more tech advanced weapons if there is a process in place to help restrict them to people that qualify for them.

[bobbythekidd]

Glad I could help. I was just playing the role of Devil's advocate. Personally, I never thought the 2nd amendment was written about average Joe's. The SC said otherwise recently, so I guess I was wrong.

BTW I will be arming myself up at the gunshow in town this weekend. Thanks for giving me back my overpayment IRS!

[Purple For Life]

I also don't have a problem with automatic weapons for those that are deemed responsible enough by a majority of people in our country. In other words, here are the tests you have to pass and the hoops that you need to jump through if you want to own Weapon X.

The only problem is, like now, the nutjobs that still manage to give the system the slip. And the people who may be "sane" but not legit, turning around and selling those guns to people who are crazy.

Guns intimidate me. My dad had a couple when I was a kid for shooting raccoons and skunks, etc. and every time he got it out, it gave me a pit in my stomach. Just don't like what they can do, don't like the things that happen tragically that don't have to happen.

[D1B]

I also don't have a problem with automatic weapons for those that are deemed responsible enough by a majority of people in our country. In other words, here are the tests you have to pass and the hoops that you need to jump through if you want to own Weapon X.

The only problem is, like now, the nutjobs that still manage to give the system the slip. And the people who may be "sane" but not legit, turning around and selling those guns to people who are crazy.

Guns intimidate me. My dad had a couple when I was a kid for shooting raccoons and skunks, etc. and every time he got it out, it gave me a pit in my stomach. Just don't like what they can do, don't like the things that happen tragically that don't have to happen.

Guns aint a big deal. There are thousands of problems way worse than guns that deserve attention.

The media and politicians love guns. Guns sell newpapers and TV advertising. Guns ensure the feeble are in a constant state of fear thus reliant on politicians to protect them.

Gun control is a useless endeavor. Stopping the stupid drug war, legalization of all drugs and addressing the appalling state of our education system would be much more effective.

[Purple For Life]

The only problem is, like now, the nutjobs that still manage to give the system the slip. And the people who may be "sane" but not legit, turning around and selling those guns to people who are crazy.

Guns intimidate me. My dad had a couple when I was a kid for shooting raccoons and skunks, etc. and every time he got it out, it gave me a pit in my stomach. Just don't like what they can do, don't like the things that happen tragically that don't have to happen.

Guns aint a big deal. There are thousands of problems way worse than guns that deserve attention.

The media and politicians love guns. Guns sell newpapers and TV advertising. Guns ensure the feeble are in a constant state of fear thus reliant on politicians to protect them.

Gun control is a useless endeavor. Stopping the stupid drug war, legalization of all drugs and addressing the appalling state of our education system would be much more effective.

Now that, I can agree with. *thumbs up*

[grizzaholic]

Guns aint a big deal. There are thousands of problems way worse than guns that deserve attention.

Good post D1B.

[travelinman67]

I also don't have a problem with automatic weapons for those that are deemed responsible enough by a majority of people in our country. In other words, here are the tests you have to pass and the hoops that you need to jump through if you want to own Weapon X.

The only problem is, like now, the nutjobs that still manage to give the system the slip. And the people who may be "sane" but not legit, turning around and selling those guns to people who are crazy.

Guns intimidate me. My dad had a couple when I was a kid for shooting raccoons and skunks, etc. and every time he got it out, it gave me a pit in my stomach. Just don't like what they can do, don't like the things that happen tragically that don't have to happen.

That is a learned response from growing up around contemporary media and watching special effects on TV programs. If your emotional response were based upon REAL dangers, you'd probably never get into an automobile, ride a bicycle, use a kitchen knife, fly on an airplane, or go near a defensive lineman. Having seen cadavers of men who were both beaten to death and killed by a firearm, I assure you both are equally grotesque.

Point is, it's not the firearm, it's what can result from it's misuse by a disturbed individual...who could effect similar results with a knife, car, fists...etc...

[bobbythekidd]

Good post D1B.

+1. Well said D

[Cap'n Cat]

The only problem is, like now, the nutjobs that still manage to give the system the slip. And the people who may be "sane" but not legit, turning around and selling those guns to people who are crazy.

Guns intimidate me. My dad had a couple when I was a kid for shooting raccoons and skunks, etc. and every time he got it out, it gave me a pit in my stomach. Just don't like what they can do, don't like the things that happen tragically that don't have to happen.

Guns aint a big deal. There are thousands of problems way worse than guns that deserve attention.

The media and politicians love guns. Guns sell newpapers and TV advertising. Guns ensure the feeble are in a constant state of fear thus reliant on politicians to protect them.

Gun control is a useless endeavor. Stopping the stupid drug war, legalization of all drugs and addressing the appalling state of our education system would be much more effective.

Reppies, with one reservation.

Our ed system is not appalling. It's suffering from longtime, Conk-backed underfunding.

[Purple For Life]

The only problem is, like now, the nutjobs that still manage to give the system the slip. And the people who may be "sane" but not legit, turning around and selling those guns to people who are crazy.

Guns intimidate me. My dad had a couple when I was a kid for shooting raccoons and skunks, etc. and every time he got it out, it gave me a pit in my stomach. Just don't like what they can do, don't like the things that happen tragically that don't have to happen.

That is a learned response from growing up around contemporary media and watching special effects on TV programs. If your emotional response were based upon REAL dangers, you'd probably never get into an automobile, ride a bicycle, use a kitchen knife, fly on an airplane, or go near a defensive lineman. Having seen cadavers of men who were both beaten to death and killed by a firearm, I assure you both are equally grotesque.

Point is, it's not the firearm, it's what can result from it's misuse by a disturbed individual...who could effect similar results with a knife, car, fists...etc...

Actually, no. I grew up with the big Four/Five. No cable. No satellite. I wasn't allowed to watch R movies.

However, Dad did tell us that the gun was a serious thing, and that it had potential to kill. I saw dead raccoons and skunks, I didn't need violent media to tell me that a gun could kill.

I just don't like guns, don't see the point why someone has to have enough guns to warrant a gun cabinet as tall as me. (I'm 5'5", for the record.)

[travelinman67]

That is a learned response from growing up around contemporary media and watching special effects on TV programs. If your emotional response were based upon REAL dangers, you'd probably never get into an automobile, ride a bicycle, use a kitchen knife, fly on an airplane, or go near a defensive lineman. Having seen cadavers of men who were both beaten to death and killed by a firearm, I assure you both are equally grotesque.

Point is, it's not the firearm, it's what can result from it's misuse by a disturbed individual...who could effect similar results with a knife, car, fists...etc...

Actually, no. I grew up with the big Four/Five. No cable. No satellite. I wasn't allowed to watch R movies.

However, Dad did tell us that the gun was a serious thing, and that it had potential to kill. I saw dead raccoons and skunks, I didn't need violent media to tell me that a gun could kill.

I just don't like guns, don't see the point why someone has to have enough guns to warrant a gun cabinet as tall as me. (I'm 5'5", for the record.)

It ain't the heighth of the gun cabinet that matters...

...now, if you weren't skinny, then...



...I'd say that's about a 15 gun cabinet...

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

That is a learned response from growing up around contemporary media and watching special effects on TV programs. If your emotional response were based upon REAL dangers, you'd probably never get into an automobile, ride a bicycle, use a kitchen knife, fly on an airplane, or go near a defensive lineman. Having seen cadavers of men who were both beaten to death and killed by a firearm, I assure you both are equally grotesque.

Point is, it's not the firearm, it's what can result from it's misuse by a disturbed individual...who could effect similar results with a knife, car, fists...etc...

Actually, no. I grew up with the big Four/Five. No cable. No satellite. I wasn't allowed to watch R movies.

However, Dad did tell us that the gun was a serious thing, and that it had potential to kill. I saw dead raccoons and skunks, I didn't need violent media to tell me that a gun could kill.

I just don't like guns, don't see the point why someone has to have enough guns to warrant a gun cabinet as tall as me. (I'm 5'5", for the record.)

I grew up the same fashion when it came to guns. Dad had many guns and always had a .357 under the seat of his truck and one under his bed. He showed me and my brother the damage that it could do to various objects at the shooting range and let us shoot the firearms at the gun club once in a while. He must have done it the right way regarding my brother and I because we NEVER touched one of his guns when he wasn't around.

People have fears about all sorts of things that are quite unreasonable, I have seen clips of them on the daytime TV shows quite a bit so you're not unusual in having an irrational fear of guns. It is nonetheless irrational.

You say you don't understand the point of people having a gun cabinet. That's fine as well because you don't have to understand why other people find enjoyment or security in various things, they just do. I can't understand why someone would want a cat tracking it's kitty litter paws all over the place but it brings some level of enjoyment to those that do and therefore it's reall nothing for me to concern myself with. I have been shot at in armed robbery before and I will tell you one thing for god damn sure...I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have one. If it helps you to understand why people have a love of guns it is because they provide protection, and bring hours of enjoyment when feeling the power of shooting them. I sleep with a .12 guage on a ledge within reaching distance every night and I won't be without the proper tools in case someone with bad intentions and a gun decide to try and make unjust grab for things that aren't theirs, or even worse take a life in the process. With any luck at all I will be able to end at lest that fella's string of bad decision making for good. As I stated earlier, every soul on this planet has a right to protect themselves from danger.